BUSINESS BEFORE QUESTIONS

London Local Authorities and Transport for London (No. 2) Bill [Lords] (By Order)

Consideration of Bill, as amended, opposed and deferred until Tuesday 16 April (Standing Order No. 20).

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

The Deputy Prime Minister was asked—

Devolution

Harriett Baldwin: When he expects that the report from the commission on the consequences of devolution for the House of Commons will be published.

Stephen Phillips: What progress the Government have made on resolving the West Lothian question.

Chloe Smith: With this, I will also answer Question 2. The McKay commission, which the Government established to consider how the House of Commons deals with legislation that affects only part of the UK, reported yesterday. We are grateful to the commission for its work. This is an important issue, which is why the Government asked the expert commission to look at it. The report presents a positive step forward, and we will give it very serious consideration before responding substantively.

Harriett Baldwin: I, too, thank the McKay commission for such an erudite report. The commission outlines a principle: that decisions at UK level with a separate and distinct effect for England should normally be taken only with the consent of a majority of MPs for constituencies in England. Will the Minister argue with her boss, who is a passionate believer in political and constitutional reform, to implement that sensible principle in the next Session?

Chloe Smith: I commend my hon. Friend for her work on this important matter—she has campaigned long and hard and taken the time to go into the detail. As I
	have said, the Government take the report extremely seriously. We believe it is a positive step forward, and I am happy to talk to all members of the Government about its merits and otherwise.

Mr Speaker: I call Stephen Phillips. Not here.

David Hanson: Does the Minister accept that constituents of mine who use the health service in England, work in the public sector in England and use public transport in England, but who are represented by me as a Welsh Member of Parliament, want a say on matters relating to England? Does she accept that there are problems, but not always solutions?

Chloe Smith: I ought to accept that the right hon. Gentleman wants to do a very good job for his constituents, which I am sure he does. However, I note that the McKay commission report refers to England matters and England and Wales matters. Those serious issues require extensive consideration.

Iain Stewart: Next September’s referendum will, I hope, deliver a substantial no vote against separation. May I suggest that that would be an ideal time to implement the McKay commission’s sensible proposals and evolve the devolution settlement into one that will be acceptable on both sides of the border?

Chloe Smith: I thank my hon. Friend for his contribution. I hear his view on the timing of what the Government must do next. We will take that decision seriously alongside the substantive issues in the report. I agree with him and many others that the people of Scotland should choose to stay in the UK next September, and am confident they will do so.

Angus MacNeil: I wonder whether the resolving of the West Lothian question will help us to understand why the Liberal Democrats voted against air passenger duty in opposition, but voted for it while in government, as we saw last night.

Chloe Smith: I do not believe that even I could persuade the McKay commission to cover that level of detail. However, as I said in answer to the previous question, the people of the UK are stronger together than they are apart. I hope he transfers that message to his constituents.

Mr Speaker: Order. As I think the House knows, the hon. Gentleman was practising the shoehorning technique, which was as mischievous as it was just about orderly.

Greg Mulholland: The biggest threat to the UK might be not the Scottish referendum next year, but the increasing sense in England that the current constitutional settlement is not a fair one. Does my hon. Friend agree that we already have two different classes of MPs, in the sense that Scottish and Welsh MPs have colleagues in the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly who perform some of the role that English MPs do?

Chloe Smith: The McKay commission report deals with some of the questions the hon. Gentleman raises. As I have said, they are serious questions, and it will take time to ensure that we respond appropriately. We will do just that.

Political and Constitutional Reform

Karl Turner: What the Government’s political and constitutional reform priorities are up to 2015.

William Bain: What his plans are for constitutional and political reform for the remainder of the present Parliament.

Nicholas Clegg: The Government continue to work on political and constitutional reform, particularly devolving more powers from Whitehall to our cities and regions. Work also continues on the implementation of individual electoral registration and developing proposals on recall and lobbying reform.

Karl Turner: Will there be a Bill to regulate the lobby industry in the Queen’s Speech?

Nicholas Clegg: As the hon. Gentleman may know, we are still reflecting on exactly how to proceed on lobbying, but we will do so. I cannot give him a precise date for when we will come forward with our proposals after the consultation, which provided a lot of feedback, but we will do so in due course.

William Bain: The European convention on human rights offers basic human rights protections for 60 million people in this country and is critical to the devolution settlement. Will the Deputy Prime Minister therefore echo calls from the Opposition to resist the radical right behind him, and to keep the Human Rights Act and the United Kingdom as a proud signatory to the convention?

Nicholas Clegg: As the hon. Gentleman well knows, there is a difference of opinion among the coalition parties on the status of the Human Rights Act and the ECHR which it incorporates. I have always been very clear that I think that the rights and protections in the Act are very valuable for all British citizens, and I will continue to defend them.

Andrew Turner: The Deputy Prime Minister’s answer a moment ago included the words “cities” and “regions”. What is he doing about islands?

Nicholas Clegg: The mere fact that the answer mentioned cities and regions does not mean that we are not also concerned about islands. I very much hope that by the end of this Parliament we will see a discernable shift of power and decision-making authority from Whitehall to all parts of the United Kingdom, whether islands, counties, cities or regions.

Andrew Bridgen: Does my right hon. Friend agree that decentralising power to local communities is not only good for our
	democracy and political system, but provides an opportunity to unlock economic growth locally across the country?

Nicholas Clegg: I strongly agree with my hon. Friend. Not only has political power been centralised for far too long, but so has the way in which we run our economy. The Labour Government over-relied on one sector—financial services—in 1 square mile of the City of London, ignoring the needs and economic potential of 100,000 square miles across the country. We must devolve political decision making and ensure that our economy is also more decentralised.

Sadiq Khan: The Deputy Prime Minister will be aware that the document “The Coalition: our programme for government” states:
	“We will fund 200 all-postal primaries over this Parliament”.
	Will the Deputy Prime Minister inform the House of the progress on this promise and whether any pressure has been brought to bear on him by the Prime Minister, who may regret having primaries to select some of his Members of Parliament, bearing in mind how independently minded some of them have been recently?

Nicholas Clegg: We will make an announcement on that component of the constitutional and political reform programme in the coalition agreement in due course. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, it was slightly in abeyance as long as the debate about the boundary changes was still a live issue. As that has now been settled for the time being—if not satisfactorily in everyone’s opinion—we will of course return to the issue of all-postal primaries and make our views clear.

House of Lords

Nicholas Dakin: How many new members of the House of Lords the Government plan to create.

Chloe Smith: As stated in the programme for government, appointments will be made to the House of Lords with the objective of creating a second Chamber that reflects the share of the vote secured by the political parties at the last general election.

Nicholas Dakin: The coalition Government have created 43 peers a year on average, more than the five previous Prime Ministers. The average will go up to 60 a year if the Minister’s direction of travel is followed. Does she see this as a badge of honour?

Chloe Smith: What I see is an avoidance of the reality of what happened after 2010, which was that the list of appointments contained the picks of the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown) and Labour became the largest party in the Lords despite having lost the general election.

Bob Stewart: If the intention of House of Lords reform was to cut the number of Lords, is it not strange that we intend to increase the number instead of reducing it by half?

Chloe Smith: It is important to use facts in this debate. It might be of help to note that there has been a net increase of only 23 in the number of peers eligible to sit and vote in the other place since Tony Blair left office in 2007.

Naomi Long: As part of the pre-legislative consultation on the draft Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, consideration has been given to the elimination of dual mandates not only between the House of Commons and the Northern Ireland Assembly, but between the House of Lords and the Assembly. What is the Minister’s view?

Chloe Smith: I am happy to write to the hon. Lady to deal with her question in enough detail.

Wayne David: In September 2010, the Deputy Prime Minister said that the Government wanted to reduce the cost of politics. To date, 128 new peers have been appointed at a cost of £131,000 each per year, with more planned. Why are the Government no longer concerned about reducing the cost of politics?

Chloe Smith: The hon. Gentleman’s party refused to allow the timetable that would have allowed the Government to plan to instil greater legitimacy and constrain the size of the House of Lords. I think that answers his question.

Voter Registration

Clive Betts: What steps the Government plan to take to improve registration levels when individual voter registration is introduced.

Chloe Smith: rose—

David Wright: Is the hon. Lady the Deputy Prime Minister now?

Chloe Smith: It seems that some would like to promote me, which is no doubt a question for a commission to look into.
	The Government are committed to doing all they can to maximise registration. We have published detailed research, which has informed our plans to use data matching, targeted engagement with under-registered groups and new technology to modernise the system to make it as convenient as possible for people to register to vote.

Clive Betts: I am sure the Minister is aware that, in principle, I am a supporter of individual voter registration, but I am concerned about the current low levels of voter registration. Will she therefore give an assurance that the steps taken with regard to data matching will ensure that there is no fall in the level of registration? Hopefully there will be an increase, but what will she do if it does not work out that way?

Chloe Smith: I share the hon. Gentleman’s concerns to see the greatest possible levels of both accuracy and completeness in the electoral registers, and I look forward to working with him and others to do that. Solving the problem of under-registration is not the responsibility
	of the Government alone; it is the responsibility of all politicians and many people across the community to work together to drive up rates. As I hinted in my previous answer, we are taking a number of measures as part of the individual electoral registration programme including: data matching, phasing in the transition over two years, a carry-forward to allow some of those not individually registered to vote in the next general election, a write-out to all the electorate in 2014, a publicity campaign and doorstep canvassing as at present.

Stephen Mosley: The areas where the electoral roll is most inaccurate in Chester are those with large student populations. Some students register in Chester where they are at university, some register at home, some register at both and some register at none at all. Has the Minister given any consideration to the registration of students under individual voter registration?

Chloe Smith: My hon. Friend raises an important point. As I mentioned in my previous answer, we all wish to see the greatest possible level of registration across all groups in society. We are running data matching scheme pilots aimed specifically at students and young people who are about to obtain the franchise. I look forward to his help on that in his university area, and that of other Members.

Gregory Campbell: Working class areas across the United Kingdom are quite often the areas where voter registration is lowest. Will the Minister ensure that they are targeted by both the Electoral Commission and the Electoral Office for Northern Ireland to ensure maximum registration in those areas?

Chloe Smith: I can reassure the House that we are working with both the Electoral Commission, and, of course, electoral registration offices and administrators in all parts of the United Kingdom, to make the programme a success. In response to the hon. Gentleman’s particular concern about people in both his constituency and others, we expect EROs of particular local authorities to know their areas best and to work with us.

Julian Huppert: I share the concerns of the hon. Member for City of Chester (Stephen Mosley) about student registration, which is a big issue in my constituency. I heard what the hon. Lady said. Will she be working with universities, colleges and student unions to ensure a strong campaign to get every student registered?

Chloe Smith: We are already doing that. Work has been undertaken with the National Union of Students. I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s enthusiasm for that campaign. I also note that one of the points of the programme is to encourage individual registration, and I hope that many students—highly educated as they are, after all—would recognise the benefits of doing so.

Meg Hillier: Will the Minister update us on the administrative need to provide one’s national insurance number on registration and say whether she has modelled the impact of this on take-up?

Chloe Smith: I certainly can confirm that the national insurance number will be used in registration. It is an important part of the process and one of the primary identifiers that we will be using. There will be others, as part of the exceptions process, which will perhaps be important to the people the hon. Lady may be concerned about. I would be happy to provide her with more detail as she requires.

Philip Hollobone: It seems to me that every time someone comes into contact with their local council, makes a benefit application, buys a house or rents a property, someone should ask them, “Are you on the electoral register?” What can the Minister do to encourage Government agencies, local government agencies and private companies to ask that question?

Chloe Smith: My hon. Friend underlines the point I was making earlier, which is that there is a responsibility across society to encourage people to take part in politics by registering to vote. I am sure he will be working with a range of groups in his constituency to do that. I can also confirm that the programme is using extensive data matching to ensure that records can be shared where appropriate, certainly between public sector bodies, to do the best job we can.

Topical Questions

Stephen Gilbert: If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

Nicholas Clegg: rose—

Hon. Members: Hurray!

Nicholas Clegg: I am grateful for the welcome from the Opposition Benches.
	As Deputy Prime Minister, I support the Prime Minister on a full range of Government policy and initiatives. Within Government I take special responsibility for this Government’s programme of political and constitutional reform.

Stephen Gilbert: Does the Deputy Prime Minister agree that we need to rebuild confidence in our failing immigration system by tackling abuses and also bearing down on the legacy of incompetence?

Nicholas Clegg: I strongly agree with my hon. Friend that, having not only crashed the economy, Labour also left an immigration system in chaos, in which the public had absolutely no confidence whatever. Just as we are repairing, reforming and rebuilding our economy, we are having to do the same to the immigration system, which Labour left in such a lamentable mess. I agree with him that unless the public have confidence that the immigration system is competently administered, it is difficult to persuade people that we should remain the open, generous-hearted country that we are.

Harriet Harman: In last week’s Budget it was announced that there would be a Government-backed mortgage scheme for homes up to a value of £600,000. Will the Deputy Prime Minister make it absolutely clear that it will not be available for people buying a second home?

Nicholas Clegg: As the Chancellor made very clear, that is absolutely not the intention of the scheme. The intention of the scheme is to allow people to buy new homes, but as the right hon. and learned Lady very well knows, this is a complex area. There are anomalies that we need to address. For instance, we would need to ensure that the rules allow divorced couples to access the system just as much as anybody else. The Treasury is working on the details of the scheme to ensure that it does exactly what it is intended to do.

Harriet Harman: It is not a question of complexity or detail: the Treasury is very familiar with the notion of sole or main residence. The Deputy Prime Minister has not answered the question. It is not about the intention; it is a question of whether the Government are ruling that out. Let me ask him about something else—not a detail, but something fundamental—and see whether he can be clearer about that. Will he make it clear that the Government have ruled out making this Government-backed mortgage help available to people who are not domiciled in this country?

Nicholas Clegg: As the right hon. and learned Lady knows, the reason we have developed Help to Buy—which has two components: Government equity in new build construction and mortgage assistance —is of course not to subsidise people who have no stake in this country, nor is its intention to provide subsidies for people buying second homes. It is there to restore confidence in the housing market as a whole and ensure that the construction industry is given a significant boost, so that we employ more people and give people the opportunity to own their own homes.

Mr Speaker: Bob Blackman. Not here. It looks as if the hon. Gentleman is quickly getting to his seat without further delay. Hurry up. Mr Bob Blackman.

Bob Blackman: Thank you, Mr Speaker. My apologies; I was held up on London transport. With the local elections coming in May, will my right hon. Friend comment on the initiatives he is taking to combat postal vote fraud and impersonation at polling stations?

Nicholas Clegg: As I hope my hon. Friend will know, the principal intention of the Electoral Registration and Administration Act 2013, which we are seeking to implement as quickly as we can, is precisely to deal with the high levels of fraud in certain parts of the country, which most people of all parties felt was unacceptable.

Jim Cunningham: What consideration has the Deputy Prime Minister given to lowering the voting age to 16?

Nicholas Clegg: That is not something that the coalition is going to deliver. I am personally persuaded of the case for lowering the voting age, but it was not included in the coalition agreement, so it is not something that the coalition Government will deliver during this Parliament.

Mr Speaker: Mike Freer. He is definitely not here; perhaps he is stuck on London transport as well, who knows?

Fiona Bruce: Will the Deputy Prime Minister join me and the all-party group on North Korea in welcoming last week’s historic resolution by the UN Human Rights Council to establish a commission of inquiry to investigate the grave violations of human rights in North Korea? I thank our Government for their vital work on this subject, and I ask the Deputy Prime Minister to thank those many civil rights organisations, such as Christian Solidarity Worldwide, that have campaigned on this issue for many years.

Nicholas Clegg: I certainly join my hon. Friend in applauding the fact that the UN resolution was passed. As she knows, the Foreign Secretary and the Foreign Office have been working tirelessly on this issue. My hon. Friend has been an outspoken observer and critic of the behaviour of the North Korean regime, which continues to imperil peace and stability both in the region and globally. It is an issue that this Government and Governments across the world take very seriously indeed.

Linda Riordan: Local authorities are being forced to cut back the money they spend on electoral registration. Is the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, the hon. Member for Norwich North (Miss Smith) concerned about that and, if so, what does she intend to do about it?

Nicholas Clegg: I would be happy to send the hon. Lady the figures, but I think it is simply not the case that local authorities have been forced to cut back on the resources they provide to electoral registration officers. Local authorities are, as we know, under financial pressure generally, and about a quarter of all public expenditure is passed through local councils, which is twice the amount of money we spend on defence. Given that the Labour party left us with no money, I am afraid that savings need to be made.

Philip Hollobone: Under what circumstances would the Deputy Prime Minister resign as joint chairman of the coalition Sub-Committee?

Nicholas Clegg: None that I can presently envisage.

Debbie Abrahams: Perhaps I can think of one. Ministers have said that the second set of NHS privatisation regulations due to come into effect on 1 April will not force clinical commissioning groups to put health services out to competitive tender—in spite of legal analysis showing that they are just as bad as the first such regulations. Since the warnings about the Health and Social Care Bill have turned out to be true, if NHS services are privatised, will the Deputy Prime Minister resign?

Nicholas Clegg: This is typical scaremongering from the Labour party. It was the hon. Lady’s party that wasted £250 million of taxpayers’ money subsidising the private sector in a deliberate act
	to undermine the NHS. It is the Government who have made it illegal, directly in the Health and Social Care Act 2012, to have competition based on price rather than on quality. The hon. Lady would know, if she looked in detail at the new regulations—the so-called section 75 regulations—that they make it quite clear that clinical commissioning groups are not forced to open services to competition unless they think it is clinically justified in the interests of patients to do so.

Bob Russell: I advise my right hon. Friend that a popular way of devolving power away from Westminster and Whitehall would be to abolish Essex county council and replace it with unitary authorities.

Nicholas Clegg: We do not presently have any plans to do what my hon. Friend recommends, and which he has recommended consistently over a long period. I hope that he acknowledges, however, that we have already launched eight city deals to give new powers to the eight largest cities outside London and the south-east. That will be followed this year by 20 further city deals, which are still to be concluded, and a massive devolution of financial power to local councils so that they retain business rates, starting next month.

Nicholas Dakin: It is not only unfair but poor value for money for disabled people in specially adapted homes to be hit by the pernicious bedroom tax. Will the Deputy Prime Minister commit the Government to look again at making it mandatory to exempt disabled people from that disgraceful tax?

Nicholas Clegg: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the spare room subsidy is not available to thousands upon thousands of families who receive housing benefit in the private rented sector but it is available to families who receive the benefit in the social sector. Therefore, we are trying to ensure that the two systems are fair. A total of 1.8 million households are on the social housing waiting list, yet taxpayers are subsidising 1 million bedrooms that are not being used. That is what we are trying to sort out, but I accept what he says: there will be difficult cases that we need to be able to address adequately. That is why we have provided millions of pounds extra to the discretionary housing payment pot, which now totals £150 million, and made a number of other changes. During the implementation of the policy, we will look at those cases and take further measures where we think they are justified.

Charlie Elphicke: Does the Deputy Prime Minister share my concern that three quarters of Britons regard human rights as a charter for criminals and the undeserving? Does he agree that there is time to reform and modernise human rights in this country?

Nicholas Clegg: I certainly agree that there is a chronic need to reform the way in which the European Court of Human Rights processes cases. It takes too long. Not enough people in the Court in Strasbourg are equipped to deal with cases expeditiously. That is why the former Secretary of State for Justice was right to get an agreement with all signatories to the Court to ensure, under the Brighton agenda, that the Court’s procedures are reformed. That is the kind of sensible reform we can all agree on.

Ian Lucas: My constituent’s adult son has spina bifida. He keeps his wheelchairs in his spare box room and will lose £14 a week as a result of the bedroom tax. Is that in accordance with Liberal Democrat principles?

Nicholas Clegg: As I say, we have made a number of changes already to the detail of the spare room subsidy. We have provided a considerable amount of extra money for discretionary housing payments. Councils, including the council of the hon. Gentleman’s constituent, have discretion to use that money and to change the way the policy is adapted in practice. However, we will, of course, look at these difficult cases, work with councils and, if we need to, further adapt the way in which the policy is implemented.

Andrew Stunell: I thoroughly welcome what my right hon. Friend said about city deals. Will he take note of the governance model for Greater Manchester, and does he recognise the value of a system that does not have a big mayoral figure?

Nicholas Clegg: I do not know which big mayoral figure my right hon. Friend might be thinking of, but I agree with him about the model of co-operation between local authorities of different political persuasions in Greater Manchester, which operates under the city deal system. Greater Manchester is pioneering the earn-back system, where Greater Manchester will be able to keep more revenue for infrastructure investment in the local area to the benefit of the people in Greater Manchester. That may prove to be a model that others seek to emulate elsewhere.

Fiona Mactaggart: The Deputy Prime Minister will be aware that independent researchers have concluded that the Budget and recent welfare reforms will substantially increase child poverty and material deprivation among children. Is he proud of that?

Nicholas Clegg: As the hon. Lady will know, we have set out some ideas on child poverty. In addition to the existing poverty targets, which we are duty-bound to seek to meet, we have tried to ensure that the factors that hold back children from fulfilling their potential—whether it is poor housing or poor education—are addressed through measures such as the pupil premium; there is £2.5 billion of extra money to help the most deprived children in school. In addition, as of this September, the Government are making 15 hours of free pre-school support available to two-year-olds from the most deprived families, something that her Government never delivered.

Zac Goldsmith: The Deputy Prime Minister said that he wants to see cross-party consensus on solutions to the airport capacity issue, so can he explain why he and his party have welcomed the re-inclusion of Heathrow into the Davies commission, given that his party had already ruled it out for ever? Surely that means he risks wasting an awful lot of money and everyone’s time.

Nicholas Clegg: My hon. Friend rightly says that I and my party are not persuaded at all of the case for Heathrow expansion, but equally we should not
	seek, and no party on either side of the House should seek, to tie the hands of the independent commission looking at this issue in the round. We will await with interest, as I guess everybody will, the results of the interim report of Howard Davies’s commission and its final report after the next general election.

Michael Connarty: Given the Deputy Prime Minister’s feeble response to the question from the shadow Deputy Prime Minister, in which he gave no safeguards that people, including people from abroad, will not be able to buy second homes with the mortgage subsidy, can he deal with two other problems? First, all the analysts say that this measure will create a housing bubble and inflate house prices. Secondly, it will trap many people who would not otherwise get on to the housing market in sub-prime mortgages that they cannot afford in the long run.

Nicholas Clegg: One would have thought that a party that crashed the economy, sucked up to the banks and let them get away with blue murder, and presided over a massive housing boom and bust would have a hint, a note of contrition in its questions about the housing market. Why does the hon. Gentleman want to deprive his constituents of the ability to get their feet on the first rung of the property ladder? Why does he want to deprive young families who want to have a home they can call their own of the ability to do so? Instead of constantly carping about our attempts to fix the mess he and his colleagues left behind, perhaps for once he should come up with some ideas of his own.

Neil Carmichael: Does the Deputy Prime Minister agree that the measures in the coalition’s Budget for small and medium-sized businesses, including introducing the business bank, changes to national insurance and the industrial strategy, all add up to a massive confidence boost for the small business sector? That is great news for our economy, and we should be right behind those measures.

Nicholas Clegg: I agree with my hon. Friend. Of course, we all know that times are very difficult and that the British economy is taking time to heal. That is why it is a great tribute to the Chancellor and his team that in the Budget we have none the less found measures that will take 2 million people on low pay out of paying income tax altogether, that will give small employers and businesses around the country £2,000 off to allow them to employ more people, and that included £1 billion extra for the aerospace industry. It means that people will not face the higher petrol and fuel prices they would have faced under Labour, and it has got rid of the beer escalator and made sure that we ease the squeeze on household budgets.

David Winnick: Given that the Deputy Prime Minister has changed his mind on cash bonds for some visitors coming to the UK—a very different policy from the one he advocated in his Opposition days—could he put in the Library a list of the items he believed in and argued for before the election, but which he no longer believes in and, indeed, has totally changed his position on?

Nicholas Clegg: What I would put in the Library, if the hon. Gentleman wishes, is the fact that the last Labour Government removed exit controls on our borders, so they had no idea who was leaving this country and who was coming in. The reason why we can pilot the so-called security bonds for people coming here on temporary visas is that, unlike his Government, we are reinstalling the exit checks that we have been campaigning—as Liberal Democrats and now in government—to reinstall for many years.

Stephen Metcalfe: Business growth in Basildon and Thurrock, supported by Essex county council, is three times higher than the regional average. Does my right hon. Friend therefore agree that the recently introduced employment allowance will encourage those new businesses to take on their first, or an additional, employee, thus supporting both businesses and those seeking work?

Nicholas Clegg: I agree with my hon. Friend. This new employer’s allowance is a very exciting way of encouraging small and medium-sized businesses, which are the backbone of the British economy, to take on more people. When it comes into effect it will mean that a small employer will be able to employ someone on up to about £22,000 without paying any national insurance whatsoever.

Barry Sheerman: Did the Deputy Prime Minister have any hand in the air-sea rescue helicopter service being sold off or given to a Texan company rather than to the British Navy and Air Force? Is he responsible for that? Does he approve of it, as it seems a rather strange decision?

Nicholas Clegg: I do if the service is better and if the Department for Transport, which has run this tender, is clearly persuaded that this is the best way to ensure the safety and security of the British people in the future and to do so at the best value for taxpayers’ money. Those are precisely the criteria on which everyone—any reasonable person—would judge this decision.

Andrew George: Cornwall may not look like a city but, as my right hon. Friend knows, it has both the ambition and the building blocks to negotiate a deal with the Government on devolved powers. Will he ensure that those ambitions can be fast-tracked to reality?

Nicholas Clegg: My hon. Friend has been a tireless campaigner, with his Cornish colleagues, for emulating the idea of a city deal but adapting it for the needs of Cornwall, now and in the future. I applaud him for that, and I will make sure that he and his colleagues can meet the Minister for cities and decentralisation, to make the case directly for a bespoke deal for Cornwall at some point in the future.

Ian Lavery: Is there any chance that the announcements made about the housing package in last week’s Budget could create a housing bubble here in the UK and risk repeating the mistakes of the United States sub-prime market?

Nicholas Clegg: The key way to make sure that there is no repeat of the disastrous mismanagement of the housing market that we saw under the previous Government is to ensure that more homes are built. That is why one significant component of the Help to Buy announcement that the Chancellor made last week is precisely that Government equity being put towards the construction of new homes should lead to extra construction activity and a further supply of housing. The Budget also included an announcement of a further 15,000 social homes being built, in addition to the several thousand more that are already in the pipeline.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr Speaker: Order. We had 23 questions in that period but we must now move on.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

The Attorney-General was asked—

Rule of Law

Yasmin Qureshi: What recent representations he has received on the effect of membership of the European convention on human rights on the UK’s reputation for upholding the rule of law.

Dominic Grieve: I have not received any recent representations on this subject, but I am clear that the United Kingdom’s enviable reputation for upholding the rule of law is closely linked to our country’s commitment to the European convention on human rights and to ensuring that those rights are enshrined in our own laws.

Yasmin Qureshi: I thank the Attorney-General for that answer. Some Government Members are talking about exiting the European convention on human rights. Will he assure us that that will not happen? I know that he believes in the convention, so may I tell him that he will have the support of Opposition Members in the battle to ensure that we remain in it?

Dominic Grieve: I have noticed, on occasion, irritation in all parts of the House about the operation of the European convention on human rights, but the Government’s position remains clear: our adherence to the convention is in the national interest.

Edward Leigh: Is it not possible to be proud that this country created the European convention on human rights in 1948 to counter communism and fascism while also being dismayed that, because of judicial activism, the Court is interfering in the rights of this democratic Assembly to come to its own conclusions on issues such as prisoner voting rights?

Dominic Grieve: My hon. Friend is right to say that the United Kingdom has not been uncritical of the way in which the European Court of Human Rights has operated. That is why we initiated the negotiation
	with other countries which led to the Brighton declaration. We believe that the principles of subsidiarity should be re-emphasised, that the selection of judges should be improved and that the backlog of the Court needs to be addressed. Those are important reform packages. We were successful in getting agreement on them last year, and we intend now to see that they are implemented.

Jeremy Corbyn: Does the Attorney-General agree that it is simply not possible or right to start picking and choosing which decisions of the European Court of Human Rights we agree or disagree with? We are signed up to that charter, which guarantees the human rights of people all over Europe, including in this country. Surely that is something of which we should be proud rather than trying to undermine it all the time, as many of his Back Benchers consistently do.

Dominic Grieve: The convention is an international legal obligation that we take extremely seriously and I have no doubt that our adherence to it is extremely helpful in raising standards of human rights elsewhere and in countries that have much poorer track records. The advantages to be derived from such an international legal obligation applied across countries need to be weighed in the balance when people are critical of how it is sometimes interpreted.

Julian Huppert: Will the Attorney-General ensure that all Ministers and members of his own party are at all times honest and accurate about both the Human Rights Act and the European convention on human rights?

Dominic Grieve: I am quite sure that all my right hon. and hon. Friends always strive for accuracy in this department. It has to be said that I sometimes open my newspaper and am quite surprised to read some of the material published on the subject, so if anyone relies on such newspaper articles, it may be that they are likely to be misled.

Kelvin Hopkins: Will the Attorney-General confirm very simply that the European convention on human rights was founded by the Council of Europe and is nothing to do with the European Union, and that it is legitimate to be against the European Union while being supportive of the European convention on human rights?

Dominic Grieve: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right.

Philip Hollobone: Is it true that some of the judges on the Court that enforces the European convention have no legal training whatsoever?

Dominic Grieve: I would be hesitant to make such a comment. It is true that the judges are sometimes appointed from academic backgrounds, but it is worth bearing in mind that our national judiciary, apart from the fact that they have sometimes sat part time as judges, are not formally trained for judicial office even domestically. One must be a little wary of making such a sweeping statement, but there is no doubt, as I said, that the quality of the judiciary needs to be improved.

Angus MacNeil: Given that one of the early backers of the European convention on human rights was Winston Churchill, does that not add an historical tone as to why it would be irresponsible to remove oneself from the convention?

Dominic Grieve: I certainly agree with the hon. Gentleman that Winston Churchill was a great proponent of the convention’s coming into force. It was supported on both sides of the House. There were some hesitations at the time, but it was undoubtedly seen as a marked step change in improving human rights on the European continent.

Human Trafficking

Fiona Mactaggart: What assessment he has made of the effectiveness of prosecutions for human trafficking and related offences; and if he will make a statement.

Oliver Heald: As a member of the interdepartmental ministerial group on human trafficking, I keep the effectiveness of prosecutions for that very serious form of crime under review. Wherever possible, the Crown Prosecution Service brings prosecutions for human trafficking or other related offences.

Fiona Mactaggart: Has the Solicitor-General asked for advice on the letter signed by a dozen charities on 28 April, which predicts that when the EU trafficking directive comes into force on 6 April the UK will be in breach of the following: the protection of victims during criminal procedures, access to compensation and legal assistance, and the provision of a guardian for trafficked children during legal proceedings? What is he going to do about that?

Oliver Heald: As the hon. Lady will know—I hope she will forgive me—we do not, as Law Officers, explain when and where we have given advice. Her point is very important, however. Victims of human trafficking need to be identified and it is important that they should not be prosecuted or treated disrespectfully once that is known. That is one of the points being discussed in the interdepartmental ministerial group and she is right to highlight it.

Peter Bone: My hon. Friend referred to the interdepartmental ministerial group. Is not one of the problems that there are lots of different Acts of Parliament? Would there be any merit in pulling all the different Acts together in a consolidation Act on modern day slavery?

Oliver Heald: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for his work in this area. It is possible to consider putting a number of laws into a consolidating statute, but the problem is that we tend as a House of Commons to say, “We have these laws. Do we want to spend time consolidating them when we might have other matters to deal with?” Taking such an action was recommended in the recent report from the Centre for Social Justice, however. I have discussed it with the authors and the interdepartmental ministerial group will consider it.

Jim Shannon: Northern Ireland has had a number of convictions for human trafficking, and there are cases pending. Legislation will soon be introduced in the Northern Ireland Assembly by my colleague, Lord Morrow. Will the Solicitor-General outline the co-operation across all regions of the United Kingdom to tackle human trafficking?

Oliver Heald: As the hon. Gentleman will know, there has been considerable co-operation and co-ordination of effort, particularly over intelligence and how those offences can be disrupted. Of course, there is an issue about the new National Crime Agency and exactly how it will operate—he will be aware of the situation and the ongoing discussions. It is important that there is that co-ordination of effort, which happens across the United Kingdom and the wider world, in trying to tackle the problem.

Serious Fraud Office

Kevin Brennan: What recent assessment he has made of the success rate, measured by convictions, of investigations by the Serious Fraud Office.

Dominic Grieve: The SFO has a 71% conviction rate by defendant for the current financial year to date. It prosecutes highly specialised cases, the number of which is small, so year-on-year change in the rate is not a particularly good indicator of trends. Although there is always room for improvement, I am broadly pleased with the SFO’s conviction rate. The report by Her Majesty’s Crown Prosecution Service inspectorate in November last year found that the outcomes in SFO cases demonstrate that it can deliver under pressure. There will be a follow-up inspection within the next year.

Kevin Brennan: SFO investigations have increased in duration to 28.8 months on average, success rates are down, as the Attorney-General has just told us, and its previous director handed out £1 million to departing staff without authorisation. Can the Attorney-General tell us how much money will have to be set aside on his watch for legal fees and damages as a result of botched investigations by the SFO?

Dominic Grieve: I take it that the final part of that was the question and the rest was comment. The position is that at the moment the SFO is handling ongoing civil litigation within its budget. In so far as it requires further resources, it will speak to the Treasury.

Anne McIntosh: Will my right hon. and learned Friend explain to the House that the way those statistics are recorded changed three or four years and outline the reason for that change?

Dominic Grieve: My hon. Friend is right that the statistics for SFO cases were previously based on the number of defendants sentenced, rather than those convicted. Consequently, because the number of cases is very small, we can get huge statistical shifts simply by
	looking at it in a different way. That is why, as I explained earlier, I do not think that trends in the statistics are a good indication of performance. Overall, I prefer to rely on HMCPSI’s report.

Emily Thornberry: As the Attorney-General knows, the offence of misconduct in public office occurs when a public officer, without reasonable excuse,
	“wilfully neglects to perform his duty and/or wilfully misconducts himself… to such a degree as to amount to an abuse of the public’s trust in the office holder.”
	Is he aware of any reason why the former director of the SFO, Richard Alderman, should not be investigated for misconduct in public office over the circumstances of his failure, as senior accounting officer, to obtain authorisation for payments to senior staff members of over £1 million?

Dominic Grieve: As I am sure the hon. Lady is aware, if it is thought that somebody has committed a criminal offence and it will be subject to investigation, that would not be a matter on which I could possibly comment in the House.

Stephen Mosley: The SFO received 2,731 tip-offs from members of the public last year but launched only three investigations into information supplied by the public. If members of the public report something to the SFO, can they have confidence that it will be investigated?

Dominic Grieve: Yes, they can be confident that the reports will be looked at. Indeed, there are other routes by which reports might come to the SFO, including through the City police and Action Fraud. There is clearly a requirement for prioritisation, but the SFO will examine and consider any reports it receives.

Conviction Rates

Dominic Raab: What steps he is taking to strengthen conviction rates.

Dominic Grieve: The Crown Prosecution Service secures convictions in over 17 out of every 20 cases. The Director of Public Prosecutions has concentrated particularly on improving rape and domestic violence outcomes for victims, and conviction rates for both have improved substantially over the past two years. As for the statistical performance of the Serious Fraud Office, my hon. Friend will have heard the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan).

Dominic Raab: I thank the Attorney-General for that answer. For all the controversy over terrorism legislation, LIBOR rate rigging and tax-dodging, terrorism convictions plummeted by 77% over the past five years, convictions for false accounting fell by 73%, and convictions for tax evasion slumped to 107 under Labour. What action is he taking to plug the gaping prosecutorial deficit left by the previous Government?

Dominic Grieve: The Home Office is responsible for producing official statistics on casework outcomes in terrorism. The latest published Home Office data for the year ending September 2012 indicate that 24 out of 29 defendants were convicted, at a conviction rate of 82.8%. At that time, 134 prisoners classified as terrorists or domestic extremists were convicted and remanded. On fraud, the number of prosecutions has increased by 25% since 2010 and the conviction rate remains at 86.2%. On tax evasion, in the financial year to date 86% of cases originating with Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs have resulted in conviction. I should like to write to my hon. Friend about the overall figures on this.

Catherine McKinnell: Does the Attorney-General share my concern about the memo leaked by the CPS that showed there was a risk of CPS prosecutors deliberately choosing cases that were likely to crack because of lack of evidence, in order to save costs?

Dominic Grieve: I think that the conviction rates speak for the efficiency of the CPS. I have seen nothing to suggest that cases are not being pursued outside the ordinary tests of public interest and the reasonable prospect of getting a conviction. Obviously, if those do not apply then there should not be a prosecution at all. I am certainly not aware of there being any fiddling and of decisions being made not to prosecute certain cases that should be prosecuted.

Confiscation Orders

Chris Williamson: What steps he is taking to increase the effectiveness of the pursuit by the Crown Prosecution Service of high-value confiscation orders.

Dominic Grieve: The Crown Prosecution Service is generally very effective in the pursuit of high-value confiscation orders. My office and the CPS are represented on the Home Office-led criminal finances board, at which asset recovery performance is discussed. Asset recovery is a long process. Assets are often hidden. Third-party litigation, appeals against conviction and confiscation orders all mean that the enforcement of such orders may take a significant amount of time. Due to the way in which the value of a confiscation order is calculated, in many cases it is not possible to recover the full amount that has been ordered.

Chris Williamson: Four out of five of the largest confiscation orders sought by the CPS in the past three years have concerned VAT fraud. Will the Attorney-General ensure that prosecuting these high-value and highly complex fraud cases is prioritised by the CPS?

Dominic Grieve: I assure the hon. Gentleman that I will raise the matter with the CPS, but I have no reason to think that it is not doing that. The evidence suggests overall—I cannot break it down for VAT fraud—that year on year the amount being confiscated is rising from what was a very low and rather unsuccessful level after the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 first came into force. In the past year, £107 million was realised through confiscation. I will write to him about his specific point on VAT.

Minimum Wage: Evasion

Diana Johnson: What recent assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the Crown Prosecution Service as a prosecutor of employers who evade the minimum wage.

Oliver Heald: The Crown Prosecution Service decides whether to prosecute national minimum wage cases, but the cases are investigated by Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. Since 2010, three cases have been referred to the CPS by HMRC, two of which resulted in convictions, most recently in February 2013, where the defendant was fined £1,000.

Diana Johnson: Shockingly, there were no prosecutions for minimum wage evasion in 2011 or 2012. If the Government are really serious about dealing with low-skilled immigration and its causes, why have they not been enforcing the minimum wage legislation properly?

Oliver Heald: It is important to bear in mind that HMRC has two sorts of powers that it can use: criminal investigation, which we have already discussed, and the civil powers that enable it to look at the books and then to impose penalties and recover arrears. It is for HMRC to decide on the best way forward. The hon. Lady is right that these are important matters.

John Cryer: Is the Solicitor-General aware that the number of relevant inspections by HMRC has been falling for the past two or three years? Does that not make the sort of convictions that he is talking about less likely in the future?

Oliver Heald: These are important matters and I will pass the hon. Gentleman’s comments on to Treasury Ministers. It is important that this matter is taken seriously and that there is proper enforcement. The Government certainly consider it to be an important matter.

Rape

Stephen Doughty: What recent assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the Crown Prosecution Service in rape prosecutions.

Oliver Heald: The conviction rate for rape cases has increased from 59.4% in 2009-10 to 63.4% in the current year.

Stephen Doughty: I thank the Solicitor-General for his answer. However, in 2011-12, the CPS took no further action in nearly half the cases that involved a rape allegation that were referred to it by the police. What reasons have the Law Officers identified for that?

Oliver Heald: It is difficult to prosecute some cases. Often, it is the word of one person against the word of another. It is important in those circumstances to ensure that the victim who is the witness is properly supported. In addition, it is vital to have corroborative evidence and to use it effectively. It is sometimes said
	that there are a lot of incorrect allegations, but recent research by the CPS shows that there are very few cases of that sort. There has been a big improvement in the conviction rate, but we cannot be complacent. As the hon. Gentleman says, it is important to tackle this matter.

ROYAL ASSENT

Mr Speaker: I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that Her Majesty has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts and Measures:
	Supply and Appropriation (Anticipation and Adjustments) Act 2013
	Presumption of Death Act 2013
	Mobile Homes Act 2013
	Antarctic Act 2013
	Welfare Benefits Up-rating Act 2013
	Jobseekers (Back to Work Schemes) Act 2013
	Diocese in Europe Measure 2013
	Clergy Discipline (Amendment) Measure 2013.

Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust

Jeremy Hunt: With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the Government’s response to the Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust public inquiry.
	I congratulate my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr Lansley), on setting up the public inquiry and on the many changes that he made in foreseeing its likely recommendations. I also pay tribute to Robert Francis QC for his work in producing a seminal report that will, I believe, mark a turning point in the history of the NHS.
	Many terrible things happened at Mid Staffs, in what has rightly been described as the NHS’s darkest hour. Both the current and former Prime Minister have apologised. However, when people have suffered on such a scale and died unnecessarily, our greatest responsibility lies not in our words, but in our actions. Our actions must ensure that the NHS is what every health professional and patient wants: a service that is true to NHS values, that puts patients first, and that treats people with dignity, respect and compassion.
	The Government accept the essence of the inquiry’s recommendations and will respond to them in full in due course. However, given the urgency of the need for change, I am today announcing the key elements of our response so that we can proceed to implementation as quickly as possible. I have divided our response into five areas: preventing problems from arising by putting the needs of patients first; detecting problems early; taking action promptly; ensuring that there is robust accountability; and leadership. Let me take each in turn.
	To prevent problems from arising in the first place, we need to embed a culture of zero harm and compassionate care throughout the NHS; a culture in which the needs of patients are central, whatever the pressures of a busy, modern health service. As Robert Francis said,
	“The system as a whole failed in its most essential duty—to protect patients from unacceptable risks of harm and from unacceptable, and in some cases inhumane, treatment that should never be tolerated in any hospital.”
	At the heart of this problem is the fact that current definitions of success for hospitals fail to prioritise the needs of patients. Too often, the focus has been on compliance with regulation rather than on what those regulations aim to achieve. Furthermore, the way hospitals are inspected is fundamentally flawed, with the same generalist inspectors looking at slimming clinics, care homes and major teaching hospitals—sometimes in the same month. We will therefore set up a new regulatory model under a strong, independent chief inspector of hospitals, working for the Care Quality Commission. Inspections will move to a new specialist model based on rigorous and challenging peer review. Assessments will include judgments about hospitals’ overall performance, including whether patients are listened to and treated with dignity and respect, the safety of services, responsiveness, clinical standards and governance.
	The Nuffield Trust has reported on the feasibility of assessments and Ofsted-style ratings, and I am very grateful for its thorough work. I agree with its conclusion that there is a serious gap in the provision of clear, comprehensive and trusted information on the quality
	of care. In order therefore to expose failure, recognise excellence and incentivise improvement, the chief inspector will produce a single aggregated rating for every NHS trust. Because the patient experience will be central to the inspection, it will not be possible for hospitals to get a good inspection result without the highest standards of patient care.
	The Nuffield Trust rightly says, however, that in organisations as large and as complex as hospitals, a single rating on its own would be misleading. The chief inspector will therefore also assess hospital performance at speciality or department level. This will mean that cancer patients will be told of the quality of cancer services, and prospective mothers the quality of maternity services. We will also introduce a chief inspector of social care and look into the merits of a chief inspector of primary care to ensure that the same rigour is applied across the health and care system.
	We must also build a culture of zero harm throughout the NHS. This does not mean there will never be mistakes, just as a safety-first culture in the airline industry does not mean there are no plane crashes, but it does mean an attitude to harm that treats it as totally unacceptable and takes enormous trouble to learn from mistakes. We await the report on how to achieve this in the NHS from Professor Don Berwick. Zero harm means listening to and acting on complaints, so I will ask the chief inspector to assess hospital complaints procedures, drawing on the work being done by the right hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd)and Professor Tricia Hart to look at best practice.
	Given that one of the central complaints of nurses is that they are required to do too much paperwork and thus spend less time with patients, I have asked the NHS Confederation to review how we can reduce the bureaucratic burden on front-line staff and NHS providers by a third. I will also be requiring the new Health and Social Care Information Centre to use its statutory powers to eliminate duplication and reduce bureaucratic burdens.
	Secondly, we must have a clearer picture of what is happening within the NHS and social care system so that, where problems exist, they are detected more quickly. As Francis recognised, the disjointed system of regulation and inspection smothered the NHS, collecting too much information but producing too little intelligence. We will therefore introduce a new statutory duty of candour for providers to ensure that honesty and transparency are the norm in every organisation, and the new chief inspector of hospitals will be the nation’s whistleblower-in-chief.
	To ensure that there is no conflict in that role, the CQC will no longer be responsible for putting right any problems identified in hospitals. Its enforcement powers will be delegated to Monitor and the NHS Trust Development Authority, which it will be able to ask to act when necessary. We know that publishing survival results improves standards, as has been shown in heart surgery, so I am very pleased that we will be doing the same for a further 10 disciplines—cardiology, vascular, upper gastrointestinal, colorectal, orthopaedic, bariatric, urological, head and neck, and thyroid and endocrine surgery.
	The third part of our response is to ensure that any concerns are followed by swift action. The problem with Mid Staffs was not that the problems were unknown; it was that nothing was done. The Francis report sets out a timeline of around 50 warning signs between 2001
	and 2009, yet Ministers and managers in the wider system failed to act on those warnings. Some were not aware of them; others dodged responsibility. That must change. No hospital will be rated as good or outstanding if fundamental standards are breached, and trusts will be given a strictly limited period of time to rectify any such breaches. If they fail to do that, they will be put into a failure regime that could ultimately lead to special administration and the automatic suspension of the board.
	The fourth part of our response concerns accountability for wrongdoers. It is important to say that what went wrong at Mid Staffs was not typical of our NHS, and that the vast majority of doctors and nurses give excellent care day in, day out. We must ensure that the system does not crush the innate sense of decency and compassion that drives people to give their lives to the NHS.
	Francis said that primary responsibility for what went wrong at Mid Staffs lies with the board. We will, therefore, look at new legal sanctions at corporate level for organisations that wilfully generate misleading information or withhold information that they are required to provide. We will also consult on a barring scheme to prevent managers found guilty of gross misconduct from finding a job in another part of the system. In addition, we intend to change the practices around severance payments, which have caused great public disquiet.
	The General Medical Council, the Nursing and Midwifery Council, and other professional regulators have been asked to tighten their procedures for breaches of professional standards. I will wait to hear how they intend to do that, and for Don Berwick’s conclusions on zero harm, before deciding whether it is necessary to take further action. The chief inspector will also ensure that hospitals are meeting their existing legal obligations to ensure that unsuitable health care support workers are barred.
	The final part of our response will be to ensure that NHS staff are properly led and motivated. As Francis said,
	“all who work in the system, regardless of their qualifications or role, must recognise that they are part of a very large team who all have but one objective, the proper care and treatment of their patients”.
	Today I am announcing some important changes in training for nurses. I want NHS-funded student nurses to spend up to a year working on the front line as support workers or health care assistants as a prerequisite for receiving funding for their degree. That will ensure that people who become nurses have the right values and understand their role. Health care support workers and adult social care workers will now have a code of conduct and minimum training standards, both of which are being published today. I will also ask the chief inspector to ensure that hospitals are properly recruiting, training and supporting health care assistants, drawing on the recommendations being produced by Camilla Cavendish. The Department of Health will learn from the criticisms of its own role by becoming the first Department in which every civil servant will have real and extensive experience of the front line.
	The events at Stafford Hospital were a betrayal of the worst kind—a betrayal of patients, families, and the vast majority of NHS staff who do everything in their power to give their patients the high-quality, compassionate
	care they deserve. I want Mid Staffs to be not a byword for failure but a catalyst for change, and to create an NHS where everyone can be confident of safe, high-quality, compassionate care, and where best practice becomes common practice, and the way a person is made to feel as a human being is every bit as important as the treatment they receive. That must be our mission and I commend this statement to the House.

Andy Burnham: I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and for the measured way in which he introduced it.
	The NHS is 65 this year, and if it is to be ready for the challenges of this century, it must learn from the darkest hours of its past. The NHS was founded on compassion and, as the Secretary of State said, what happened at Stafford was a betrayal of that. Rightly, apologies have been given, but it is now time to act and make this a moment of change.
	Robert Francis delivered 290 careful recommendations after a three-year public inquiry and, like the Secretary of State, I pay tribute to him today. In response, the Prime Minister promised a detailed response to each recommendation by the end of this month. Although the Opposition welcome much of what the Secretary of State has said today, his statement falls short of that promised full response and contains serious omissions on which I would like to press him, in particular, on four of Robert Francis’s flagship recommendations, which I shall take in turn.
	First, we welcome the move to place a duty of candour on health-care providers and believe it could help bring about the culture change the NHS needs. The Francis report, however, goes further and recommends a duty of candour on individual members of staff. Will the Secretary of State say more about why he has only accepted this recommendation in part and not applied it to staff? Has he ruled that out or is he prepared to give it further consideration?
	Will the Secretary of State assure the House that the duty will apply equally to all providers of NHS services, including private providers? His statement was a little vague on that point. More generally, with more private providers coming into the NHS, is it not the case that we will not get the transparency we need unless the provisions of freedom of information apply fully to all holders of NHS contracts and information cannot be withheld under commercial confidentiality?
	Secondly, on patient voice, the Government have announced new chief inspectors of hospitals and social care. Those were not Francis recommendations and, while we give them a cautious welcome, I am sure that the Secretary of State will agree that regulation alone will not be enough to prevent another Mid Staffs. Instead, we need a powerful patient voice in every community that is able to sound the alarm if things are going wrong. Rather than pulling down the shutters, as the NHS has a tendency to do, complaints should be embraced as opportunities to learn and improve.
	It is just a matter of days until the new NHS comes into being and the concern is that patient voice has not been embedded at the heart of the new system. A third of councils say that their local healthwatch will not be up and running by the 1 April deadline, and there are
	wide variations in both structure and membership. Will the Government accept Robert Francis’s recommendation of a consistent basic structure for healthwatch programmes throughout the country before it is too late and they go their separate ways?
	Thirdly, on regulation and training, Robert Francis has made a very clear case for a new system of regulation of health care assistants to improve basic standards—a case that we made during the passage of the Health and Social Care Act 2012—yet it did not feature in the Secretary of State’s statement. Have the Government accepted in principle the regulation of health care assistants?
	We support moves to rebalance nurse training and to include more hands-on experience, but student nurses already spend 50% of their time in clinical practice and face significant financial barriers when completing their training. Will the Secretary of State assure the House that requiring a year on the ward will not increase the financial barriers to young people entering nursing and, if more trainees are to be on the wards, will he ensure that there are enough staff with the time to train the extra students?
	That takes me to my fourth point and the most glaring omission from the Secretary of State’s statement, namely safe staffing levels. We will never get the right culture on our wards if they are understaffed and over-stretched, but there is evidence that things are going in the wrong direction and the Secretary of State was silent on the issue today.
	The CQC has recently reported that one in 10 hospitals in England do not have adequate staffing levels. Just last week, work force figures showed that there had been a reduction of 843 nurses between November and December last year. Does that not sound the clearest of alarm bells that some parts of the NHS are already in danger of forgetting the lessons of its recent past by cutting the front line too far? Do not communities need a clear, objective benchmark so that they can challenge staffing levels on wards, and would it not be a great help to them for the Francis recommendation on staff-patient ratios to be accepted? We learned last week that the Department has handed £2.2 billion from last year’s budget back to the Treasury. Surely that money would have been better invested in the front line and in bringing all hospitals in England back up to safe staffing levels.
	Finally, I want to turn to Stafford hospital itself, which Monitor has recommended should be placed in administration. This doubt about the hospital’s future will be causing real concern to the people of Stafford. After all they have been through, I think we can all agree that they deserve a safe and sustainable hospital, and I hope the Secretary of State will soon set out a plan to achieve that.
	Learning the lessons of Stafford cannot be done overnight. We all have to play our part. The Government have made a start today, but much more needs to be done and we will hold them to that.

Jeremy Hunt: The right hon. Gentleman talks about glaring omissions in the Government’s response, but there were glaring omissions in his response too. Where was the apology for Labour’s targets culture that led to so many of the problems; the apology for failing to set up a
	regulatory structure that had proper safeguards; and the apology for missing all those warning signs? This was not just the darkest day in NHS history, but the darkest day in Labour’s management of the NHS. It is time the Labour party recognised the policy mistakes it made.
	Let me go through what the right hon. Gentleman says are omissions. First, on the duty of candour, we accept the principle of the duty of candour when it applies to hospital boards, but we want to be absolutely sure that there are not unintended consequences of applying it to hospital staff, because another part of the Francis report is on the importance of a culture of openness and transparency, and we do not want a culture of fear. We have therefore not ruled out criminal sanctions for hospital employees who breach a duty of candour—they already have a contractual duty of candour —but, as I said in my statement, we want to wait for the result of Don Berwick’s report on zero harm to ensure that we do not take any measure that impedes the openness we need in hospitals.
	The inspection regime will apply to all providers. It is important that it should, but I remind the right hon. Gentleman, who mentioned private providers, that the problems happened at an NHS hospital. Trying to turn this into a debate on privatisation tells people that Labour is missing the point in the response to Francis.
	We will not introduce statutory regulation of health care assistants, but we will introduce minimum standards of training for them. We will not introduce statutory regulation because we believe there is a risk that a database of 0.5 million to 1.5 million people could end up being a box-ticking exercise that fails to raise standards in the way we need. We believe we have another way to achieve the same end, which is what we will implement.
	On nurse training, we believe it is important that nurses have hands-on experience of the front line, because nurses, when they are properly qualified, will be managing health care assistants. It is therefore important that nurses understand what it is like to be a health care assistant. We will be very careful in how we implement that to ensure that we do not create financial barriers because, obviously, we want to attract the best people into nursing, regardless of income.
	On staffing levels and nursing numbers, I remind the right hon. Gentleman that the problems at Mid Staffs happened when Labour was in power, when budgets were going up quite significantly, and when numbers were going up. To distil the problem to one of numbers is, again, to miss the point. This is about the values of the people on the ward. If he wants to talk about numbers, he must accept that, because this Government have protected the NHS budget, which he wants to cut from its current levels, there are 6,000 more clinical staff in the NHS today than there were at the time of the last election.
	On Stafford hospital, it is extremely important that, when we have problems such as the ones at Mid Staffs, we create a structure that makes it impossible not to deal with them. That is a difficult process. We are announcing today a time-limited process to ensure that Ministers and the system cannot duck difficult decisions when we have a failing hospital. Obviously, we will follow the Monitor trust special administrators’ recommendations and look at them carefully, but it is important to address the issues. The wrong thing to do would be to fail to do so, because that would lead to clinical failure.
	I welcome the fact that the right hon. Gentleman broadly accepts the Francis recommendations. He asked whether we would respond to all of them. The inquiry was a public inquiry, which he refused to set up. As a result of that detailed public inquiry, there are 290 recommendations. It takes time to go through all of them in detail, but I thought it was right to come to the House today with our initial response so that we can get cracking with the important things right away.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr Speaker: Order. Dozens of colleagues are seeking to catch my eye, but I remind the House that the Government have scheduled today three ministerial statements on important matters, and colleagues will note that there are three Back Bench-inspired debates to follow, in which 48 hon. Members are interested in speaking. There is therefore a real premium on time, and I must appeal for single, short supplementary questions and characteristically pithy replies.

Cheryl Gillan: I thank the Secretary of State for coming to the House and making a statement that helps to restore our confidence in the NHS, which has been so badly undermined by Labour’s appalling stewardship. Will he take steps to ensure that any complaints procedure provides protection to patients and relatives who raise concerns?

Jeremy Hunt: My right hon. Friend makes an important point. The thing about complaints procedures is that we must have a system that is not about process and whether there is a response to a complaint in three days. The question is whether a hospital looks at and learns from a complaints procedure and changes its behaviour. That is what the right hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) and Professor Tricia Hart are looking into. Hospitals will be inspected against best practice to try to encourage as many of them as possible to adopt the very best complaints procedures.

Gisela Stuart: The Secretary of State has announced that he will consult on a barring scheme to prevent managers who are found guilty of gross misconduct from finding a job in another part of the system. To how many managers of Mid Staffordshire would he expect that to apply?

Jeremy Hunt: The hon. Lady will know that, when it comes to individuals—appalled as I am, and as appalled as all hon. Members are, by what happened at Mid Staffs—I must try not to prejudge due process. If we are to bar people from employment, we must have a fair process and system and a right of appeal, which is required under our law anyway. However, I would not expect any manager responsible for the kind of things that happened at Mid Staffs to be able to get a job in the health service ever again.

John Pugh: Peter Walsh from Action against Medical Accidents has described the legally enforceable duty of candour as the
	“the biggest advance in patient safety and patients rights in the history of the NHS.”
	Does the Secretary of State agree?

Jeremy Hunt: I listened to Peter Walsh’s thoughtful contribution to the “Today” programme this morning. We will consider carefully whether to apply the statutory duty of candour, backed up with criminal sanctions, to hospital employees. The review on zero harm and creating the right culture in hospitals will report not in a long time, but before the summer break, so it is right to wait until we have it before making our final decision.

Kevin Barron: The Francis report said that three areas went wrong: the first was unprofessional behaviour; the second was a lack of leadership; and the third was that the overwhelming prevalent factors were lack of staff in terms of both absolute numbers and appropriate skills. Given that we have lost thousands of nursing posts in the past few years, is the Secretary of State missing the point?

Jeremy Hunt: If the right hon. Gentleman had listened to what I have said, he would know that the number of clinical staff has gone up by 6,000 since the last election, which would not have been possible had we cut the NHS budget, which is what Labour Front Benchers want. It is important to ensure that we have the right numbers in wards to care for people. That is exactly what the new chief inspector will look at. There is evidence that hospitals that have the highest and most respected standards of care ensure they have adequate numbers not just of nurses, but of health care assistants. The whole NHS needs to learn the lesson that it must not cut corners when it comes to care.

Jeremy Lefroy: My right hon. Friend’s welcome statement shows just how important the inquiry was, and how vital its lessons will be for patient care and safety. The royal colleges have a great responsibility. Will he call them together on a regular basis to discuss how they are checking and raising standards in their professions to ensure first-class care for patients?

Jeremy Hunt: First, I thank my hon. Friend for his extraordinarily tireless work and for the extremely measured and mature attitude he has taken to the problems in the hospital, which is on his patch. Hon. Members on both sides of the House welcome that. He is right about the role of the royal colleges. There are some challenging suggestions in the Francis report for some of those colleges, but when we are seeking to raise standards, it is important that setting up that scorecard for the new chief inspector happens with the help of the royal colleges, whose business it is to raise standards in the NHS.

Valerie Vaz: I thank the Secretary of State for his statement, and we welcome the continuation of this discussion at the Health Committee. One of the recommendations of Francis was for the Secretary of State to look at the overlap between the CQC and Monitor, both of which were involved and have accepted they were part of the failings. Under the new inspection regime, will the chief inspector report to the Secretary of State or to the NHS Commissioning Board?

Jeremy Hunt: Neither. The chief inspector will report to the CQC. The hon. Lady is right that one of the problems is the overlapping roles and the confusion of roles. What we are announcing today is a significant change in the
	responsibilities of the CQC. It will no longer be involved in putting right problems in hospitals: its job will simply be to identify problems, so it is not compromised in its ability to be the nation’s whistleblower-in-chief. The responsibility for putting right problems will lie with Monitor, the NHS Trust Development Authority, the NHS Commissioning Board and the wider NHS system. We want to make sure that the chief inspector is unconstrained and unconflicted, when his or her team goes into hospitals, from shouting loudly if there is a problem and continuing to shout loudly until it is solved.

Tony Baldry: These changes all come against a background of other changes in the NHS, such as clinical commissioning groups, Healthwatch and health and wellbeing boards, and I wonder whether my right hon. Friend would be kind enough to put in the Library a plain person’s guide, so that we can understand how these new regulators, inspectors and various other bodies fit in with each other—who is accountable to whom—so we as constituency MPs will know whom to approach and on what occasion. I am sure that all these changes are very welcome, but we need to understand how they relate to each other.

Jeremy Hunt: I am sure that my hon. Friend’s sentiments are shared on both sides of the House. Indeed, I could have done with such a guide when I started this job last September. I am happy to do as he requests, but from today’s announcement the most important thing that the country should know is that when it comes to failures in care, the buck stops in one place. It will be the chief inspector’s job to identify such failures and shout publicly about them, and that will be an important clarification that the system needs.

Yasmin Qureshi: This is not a debate about private or public, but will the Secretary of State ensure that the duty of candour is applied equally to private providers of NHS services?

Jeremy Hunt: Yes, it will be, as it will to providers in the social care sector.

Paul Burstow: Can the Secretary of State confirm that it is his intention that the statutory duty of candour—and the introduction of a ratings system—will apply to home care and care homes, not just NHS providers?

Jeremy Hunt: Yes, I can confirm that. My hon. Friend is right, because part of the big change that we need is to see a big increase in provision of domiciliary care, and an increase in the standard of that care.

John Woodcock: The Secretary of State talks about severance and follow-on employment. Does he think it is acceptable that when the former chief executive of Morecambe Bay hospitals trust had to step down in February last year, because of the problems there, he was kept on the books in secret and paid £250,000 from local trust budgets—which could otherwise have gone to local health care—and was transferred to the NHS Confederation where his responsibilities could include teaching future leaders and helping to redesign the system?

Jeremy Hunt: That is the kind of shocking practice that is totally unacceptable.

Margot James: I very much welcome the return of student nurses to the wards for a year of their training. Project 2000 has much to answer for. On the subject of resourcing and staff to patient ratios, may I remind my right hon. Friend that many of the reports we have seen in the last few years, criticising hospitals for poor care and lack of dignity in the care of older people in particular, have shown that wards in the same hospitals have had very different standards of care? How can that be about resourcing?

Jeremy Hunt: My hon. Friend makes an important point. It is important that these assessments are made not just at an organisation level, but drill down into the different parts of a hospital, and we have taken that message on board from the Nuffield report on ratings. She is right that it is not just about resources, but sometimes it is about resources. Parts of a hospital can be understaffed when it comes to people who are required to perform basic and important roles in terms of care. Because it is a complex picture—and because numbers can be part of the problem, but are certainly not the whole problem—we want a chief inspector who will take a holistic view of every aspect of the performance of a hospital and be able to give proper feedback that a hospital can use to improve its performance.

Barbara Keeley: May I press the Health Secretary on this point? I have raised several times the point that adequate staffing levels are crucial to patient safety and good care, but we seem to dodge around saying that it is a question of values, not of numbers. Francis said clearly that one of the issues was numbers. I have given examples of my local hospital, which views it as crucial that it has the right staffing mix, which it adjusts every single day, for the patients that it has. Will he stop avoiding this question and address it directly, because one in 10 hospitals do not have adequate staffing levels?

Jeremy Hunt: I am not avoiding it. I agree that adequate staffing levels are essential to patient care. I remind the hon. Lady that the shadow Health Secretary said to the Francis inquiry:
	“I do not think that the Government could ever mandate a headcount in organisations. Whilst we could recommend staff levels, we were moving into an era when trusts were being encouraged to work differently and cleverly, and take responsibility for delivering safe care whilst meeting targets”.

William Cash: The Secretary of State rightly talks about a betrayal of trust of the worst kind, and he is right. He is also right about zero harm, and about much else that he has done. But there is one serious omission—of accountability—and that must be robust and include the resignation of Sir David Nicholson. I also apportion responsibility to those former Secretaries of State who were not called to give evidence but bear a heavy responsibility for not having done the right thing at the right time.

Jeremy Hunt: My hon. Friend knows that I have a different view of the level of responsibility of Sir David Nicholson, but I agree that everyone working in the system at that
	time shares some responsibility for what happened. We must make sure that it can never happen again. The accountability that we are introducing, including criminal sanctions for boards that fail in their statutory duties, will be a significant change. The body that was responsible for what went wrong at Mid Staffs, according to Francis, was the board of the hospital, so that is where our focus must be. Today is also about getting the right structures outside the hospital to make sure there is accountability there too.

Mark Durkan: The Secretary of State has referred to the fact the chief inspector will inspect hospital performance at specialty or department level. How will that be done? If records, paperwork and bureaucracy are being reduced in hospitals, will hospitals’ own records be used to make those assessments or will the inspector use other information?

Jeremy Hunt: Of course we need to rely on good information being supplied by hospitals, and that is why we have said today that it will be a criminal offence for hospitals knowingly to supply wrong information. This goes back to an earlier question, and we will work closely with outside bodies, such as the royal colleges, to ensure that we establish the best way to judge, for example, cancer survival rates. One of the lessons of the success of measuring heart surgery survival rates is the importance of having a good risk-adjustment process in place. We will do that across the other 10 specialties that I announced today.

Phillip Lee: Although I acknowledge the Secretary of State’s genuine desire to improve hospital standards by the introduction of his new inspectorate, I am concerned about the further reliance on systems above individual responsibility. Will he assure the House that his new inspectorate will not become yet another component of the merry-go-round of management employment schemes currently found in the NHS? Will he also assure me that those implicated in previous hospital management scandals will not be employed as inspectors in the future?

Jeremy Hunt: My hon. Friend is right: we have to ensure that the inspectorate works in the successful way that Ofsted has worked in the school system, and does not make the mistakes that have been made by other regulators inside the NHS system. It is important that it is based on respected peer review, is thorough and is respected in terms of the input that it is able to give hospitals on improving their performance. We will work hard to make sure that we deliver that.

Diana Johnson: Who is expected to pay for the additional year that nurses will spend as health care assistants?

Jeremy Hunt: We are piloting the scheme to ensure that we do not end up discriminating against nurses for financial reasons. We want to attract the best people into the profession, whatever their financial background.

Edward Leigh: Every time there is a scandal, the response of the British political establishment is to load more controls, accountability and bureaucracy on professionals, yet every nurse and
	doctor I meet is fed up with what already happens. As a result of the reforms, will the Secretary of State assure us that we will now trust professionals to get on with the job they love?

Jeremy Hunt: I agree with those sentiments strongly. In parallel to this process and these changes, I have asked the NHS Confederation to recommend how we can reduce the bureaucratic burden on hospital front-line staff by a third, precisely because I want to avoid the issues that my hon. Friend mentions. This is about freeing up time for people at the front line, and one way is to have an inspection system in which everyone has confidence. Once there is the confidence that problems will be identified, it becomes much easier, as has happened in the education system, to give more freedom to people on the front line.

Jim Shannon: I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. The public inquiry has been thorough, with new standards put in place and lessons learned from the NHS in Staffordshire. Health in Northern Ireland is a devolved matter. Will he confirm that the report will be sent to the Northern Ireland Assembly Health Minister, Edwin Poots, so that improvements and guidelines can be improved for everyone in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland?

Jeremy Hunt: I am happy to do so.

Bernard Jenkin: May I commend my right hon. Friend’s emphasis on leadership? In Colchester, we have seen periods of good and bad leadership, and good leadership is self-evidently the right answer to hospital management. Can I therefore ask him to lay more emphasis on what constitutes good leadership and trust between good leaders and their employees in the health service right through the system, including from Sir David Nicholson downwards, and not to rely overmuch on regulation, which is no substitute for good leadership?

Jeremy Hunt: I agree wholeheartedly. It is very important that we understand that the benefit of the new inspection regime will not just be that it identifies failing hospitals, but outstanding hospitals too, so that we have a good model of leadership in the system from which other managers can learn. Yes, it is really important to have the right relationships between managers and their staff, but we should not mandate or regulate that from the centre. We want to have a system where people can learn from each other.

Jane Ellison: I received a distressing piece of constituency casework yesterday that underlines the importance of the announcement my right hon. Friend has made today. Does he feel that his reforms will build more of a culture of compassion in nursing care?

Jeremy Hunt: That is at the heart of what the reforms intend to achieve. An organisation as complex and as large as the NHS needs corporate objectives and targets—for example, we need to do a lot better on dementia—and we do set system-wide objectives. However, we have to ensure that those objectives, set by whichever party happens to be in power, never compromise the fundamental
	care and compassion that needs to be at the heart of what the NHS does. We are putting in the safeguards that ensure that that cannot happen.

Naomi Long: Given the mobility of both the work force and students, what discussions has the Secretary of State had with the devolved Administrations regarding the proposed changes to funding nurse places and training?

Jeremy Hunt: We have not had those discussions yet, but we will be introducing them through pilot schemes to give the devolved Administrations plenty of time to talk to us about any knock-on impacts they may have in their areas.

Aidan Burley: Does the Secretary of State agree that the decision to grant foundation trust status to Mid Staffs in 2008 was catastrophic in terms of the trust taking its eye off the ball and focusing on targets rather than on care, and that, now it is being abolished just five years later, never again must a Government pressurise a trust into a particular organisational form just to validate its ideological policy, rather than because it improves the care of patients?

Jeremy Hunt: I would also like to thank my hon. Friend for the work that he does for his local hospital in difficult circumstances directly involved in this terrible scandal. I agree with him: the corporate objective to become a foundation trust overrode everything else in the hospital, at huge expense to patient care. We must never allow that to happen again.

John Glen: What most people want when they use the NHS is a reliable, accessible service, and to know that when something goes wrong somebody will be held to account and brought to book. Clearly, that has not happened. What can the Secretary of State say to reassure our constituents that people will be held accountable on an individual level, and that we will not see this happen again?

Jeremy Hunt: That accountability is extremely important and happens on many different levels. In particular, we have professional codes of conduct for doctors and nurses, so that in the exceptional situations where those codes are breached, we know, as members of the public, they will be held to account. Those are done at arm’s length from the Government by the General Medical Council and the Nursing and Midwifery Council, but we are talking to them about why it is that still no doctor or nurse has been struck off following what happened at Mid Staffs—I think that is completely wrong.

Andrew George: I know I repeat myself, but adequate registered nurse-to-patient ratios are often at the heart of these failings, yet on page 68 of the report my right hon. Friend rejects the idea of any kind of national benchmarking or guidelines with regard to patient ratios. Will my right hon. Friend keep an open mind and meet me, Professor Elizabeth Robb of the Florence Nightingale Foundation and others from the profession so that we can explore this issue?

Jeremy Hunt: We are not saying that minimum standards of adequate staffing levels are not needed, but we reject the idea that they should be mandated from the centre—I think there is cross-party agreement on that. The chief inspector will look at and highlight the reasons for poor care and, if they are due to inadequate staffing levels, ensure that something is done about it.

Peter Bottomley: On the rare occasions when a clinician or other member of hospital staff raises a problem and it is not taken care of, may I suggest that employers have a box in which to put in a note saying what the problem is? There should be a receipt so that if there is an inquiry later, it can be shown what the hospital should have paid attention to right at the beginning.

Jeremy Hunt: That sounds like something that would definitely encourage the duty of candour that we have been talking about today. I am sure that different hospitals will want to have different ways of doing that, but we will definitely note my hon. Friend’s comments.

Andrew Percy: Staffing levels are important, but so are bed numbers. Many of the 41,000 beds lost under the previous Government were in my constituency. Consequently, we have massive pressure on beds, wards on purple alerts and very high mortality rates. Will any inspection regime include an assessment of safe bed levels?

Jeremy Hunt: The inspection regime will of course cover such issues as part of its inspection of whether basic standards of care are being met. Yes, of course such issues matter, but there are challenges beyond what an inspection regime can deliver which we will need to address to deal with these issues. In particular, a problem we are wrestling with at the moment is who will take responsibility for the frail elderly when they are discharged from hospital. One reason why they stay in hospital for a long time is because geriatricians are nervous about sending them back into the community. They do not think anyone will take responsibility for them and that is something we have to look at.

Jackie Doyle-Price: On the respective roles of CQC and Monitor, can my right hon. Friend indicate that he expects Monitor to use the full regulatory tools at its disposal and give appropriate challenge to the boards of foundation trusts and hospitals where failure is indicated?

Jeremy Hunt: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. One of the changes we are announcing today is that, in the case of foundation trusts, CQC will be delegating its enforcement powers to Monitor so that it has more powers to insist on necessary changes and ensure that fundamental standards are not being breached.

Jonathan Evans: Will my right hon. Friend note that the Patients Association and campaigners such as the Powell family in Wales will not be satisfied by what he has had to say about the duty of candour until we have a full statutory duty in line with what Robert Francis recommended?

Jeremy Hunt: We will have a full statutory duty, in line with what Robert Francis says, when it comes to the boards of hospitals. We are carefully considering whether that should apply to individual hospital employees, but we want to wait until we have Don Berwick’s review of zero harm.

Julian Lewis: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the best system in the world will not succeed if individuals who behave inhumanely get away with it and people who observe them behaving inhumanely do not report it? I therefore re-emphasise what my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff North (Jonathan Evans) has just said: if individuals see this inhumane behaviour, they must report it.

Jeremy Hunt: I agree with what my hon. Friend says.

Chris Heaton-Harris: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his statement, particularly the parts about where perverse effects of the old target culture kick into the NHS. When the dust has settled on the Francis report and its conclusions, will he look at targets that affect the ambulance service and how they directly affect rural communities across the country?

Jeremy Hunt: We will absolutely do that, but I should also reassure my hon. Friend that the inspection regime will apply to the ambulance service as well as hospital trusts.

Charlotte Leslie: I very much welcome the Secretary of State’s statement, but does he share my sorrow that it has taken so long and so many deaths to reach this stage, when Labour was presented with reports by Don Berwick himself highlighting bad quality assessment, when 120 bodies had overlapping responsibilities and when he said that patient safety was not central to the NHS? Is it not tragic that it has taken this long?

Jeremy Hunt: I thank my hon. Friend. Sadly, I agree with her sentiments. We have a responsibility to ensure that we have structures in place that make it impossible to delay addressing these difficult issues. That is the central challenge that I now face.

Kris Hopkins: We are fortunate to have a high-performing general hospital in Keighley and Ilkley, but does my right hon. Friend agree that even hospitals such as Airedale hospital must not be complacent? Quality must be paramount. Every member of staff has a responsibility to deliver the high level of compassionate care that he spoke about.

Jeremy Hunt: I agree with my hon. Friend. I visited Airedale hospital and was very impressed with the level of care I saw there. It is one of the only hospital trusts in the country—if not the only one—where doctors can see
	the full history of what patients going into A and E have been prescribed by their GPs, which has an important impact on patient safety.

Nick Gibb: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the action he has taken, particularly re-instilling the importance of compassion in the NHS and the changes he is proposing to the training of nurses. Can he inform the House of any other NHS trust where similar concerns are being investigated?

Jeremy Hunt: One of the problems at the moment is that we do not have a good way of identifying other hospitals. The hospital inspection regime will start this year. That will obviously be the start, but prior to that we are conducting an investigation into 14 hospitals with higher than average mortality rates. That is one indicator: it might not mean there is a problem, but it is something we think is worth checking out.
	Finally, let me say that my hon. Friend has an extremely good record on improving standards in education by understanding the importance of rigour. That is something we can learn from in the inspection regime for hospitals.

Philip Hollobone: Will my right hon. Friend ensure that any revised patient care ratings include an enhanced emphasis on the degree to which things are explained clearly to patients and relatives and how relatives are kept informed?

Jeremy Hunt: My hon. Friend makes an important point. It is absolutely essential that the new chief inspector’s team talks to patients and relatives to get that feedback. One of the biggest changes from what we have now to what we will have is the element of judgment in the assessments made. We will not just be looking at the data, the dials or the numbers; there will be someone going to a hospital, smelling the coffee, understanding the culture of the place and talking to patients and relatives.

Stephen Lloyd: I commend the Secretary of State for his statement and for what I think is an absolutely outstandingly powerful report. However, I have concerns about recently proposed changes to the consultant-led maternity services at Eastbourne district general hospital. Will he confirm for the record that any changes that I and others have concerns about will be considered by the new chief inspector of hospitals?

Jeremy Hunt: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his ingenious segue. All hospitals—all NHS trusts—will be inspected by the chief inspector, so everything that happens at Eastbourne will be covered by the new regime. It will be strong, rigorous and independent, so that any concerns that my hon. Friend has should be picked up by anything that the chief inspector reports on.

Rail Franchising

Patrick McLoughlin: With permission, Mr Speaker, I wish to make a statement about the future of our railways. It is a positive future. It is almost 50 years ago to the day since Dr Beeching published his report. No one would have imagined then, or even 20 years ago, when the Government privatised the railways, which were still in decline, that the industry would now be booming. Traffic has doubled since privatisation, from 750 million journeys a year to 1.5 billion now. There are more services and record levels of investment, and our railways have the best recent safety record in Europe. That has not been achieved despite privatisation; it has been achieved because of privatisation.
	Today I am setting out a programme that can achieve even more, because our country has to compete for jobs and growth. We need a transport system that is second to none, so we are spending unprecedented sums on infrastructure, such as Crossrail, the biggest construction project in Europe, and the northern hub cross-Manchester link, which will transform services across the Pennines. In return, it is right that we demand more from the industry, because for the money that passengers and taxpayers are putting in, we should expect ambition, innovation and even better performance for passengers. This is the way we are going to get it.
	Last year, serious and unacceptable mistakes were made when it came to refranchising the west coast main line, but I have put in place a new structure and process in the Department, as the Laidlaw report recommended. In January, I announced our initial proposals for the three franchises most immediately affected: Great Western, Essex Thameside and Thameslink. Today I can confirm that I am accepting the next stage of the findings of the Brown review of rail franchising. I am also pleased that Richard Brown has agreed to chair a new franchise advisory board. I am publishing its terms of reference today. The Brown review called for a full refranchising programme to be announced by the end of April. I am pleased to be announcing it today.
	I want to be as open as possible with the market, which is why I am publishing a prior information notice to set out not just the programme for franchising, but the way in which franchises will be let and the benefits they will bring. In doing so, I have applied three principles: first, that the passenger gains; secondly, that the rail industry thrives, with growing companies and new competitors coming into the market; and thirdly, that the taxpayer gains, through a more efficient use of public money and less waste in the industry. Those three principles are essential points on which the future of our railways rests.
	Let me turn in detail to what I am announcing today —a programme that will give great improvements to the passenger, certainty to industry and a fair deal to the taxpayer. It will provide stability, so that we can invest more, and flexibility, so that different routes with different demands can be managed in different ways. The programme will also give fair weight to passenger satisfaction, which has not always been respected as it should have been, with long-term franchises that can run for up to 15 years if operators meet the standards they promise at the
	start. To ensure a competitive market, we will hold no more than three to four competitions a year, starting with a smaller number as the programme gets up to full speed and extending up to 12 current franchises to give certainty to passengers and allow the full programme to get under way.
	There are those who would like our railways to go back to the days of state ownership, decline and under-investment. They are wrong. I share the view of the last Labour Government, who said that franchising worked. In 2009, Ministers brought in Directly Operated Railways on the east coast as a short-term stand-in. They did what was needed in difficult circumstances, but the east coast main line, upgraded in the 1980s, now needs revitalising. New trains, to be built in the north-east, are now on order. Now is the right time to invite bidders to put forward proposals for investing and improving those services. This will be the first of the new inter-city franchises to be awarded in 2014 in a programme that meets my three essential principles of better service, better competition and better value.
	I wish to make one final point. The Beeching report was about closures and cutbacks, but its 50th anniversary tomorrow sees an industry marked by growth, not decline—investing in High Speed 2 for the future, as well as providing better services today. That is why I am pleased to announce the front runners in our fund to open new stations. They are Lea Bridge in Walthamstow, Pye Corner in Newport West and Ilkeston in Erewash. I expect to announce further winners soon. I commend this statement to the House.

Maria Eagle: I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement. He inherited a Department in crisis and a rail franchising system in chaos. I acknowledge that he has had to work hard to try to put things back on track. He has rightly reversed many of the decisions of his two predecessors, not least by restoring some of the key posts in the Department that had recklessly been axed by them. We welcome the speed with which the right hon. Gentleman has worked with Richard Brown and his departmental officials to put together the plans he has set out today. However, it is also true that his revised franchising timetable has exposed the full impact of the failure of his predecessors, all of whom either remain in the Cabinet or have been promoted to it.
	The Great Western contract will be awarded in July 2016—three years and three months later than planned. The west coast contract will not be awarded until April 2017—four years and four months late. Some competitions are to be delayed by as much as 50 months—not five months, but 50—yet instead of focusing on the chaos in franchising caused by his Government’s incompetence, the Secretary of State has decided to embark on an unnecessary and costly privatisation of the east coast inter-city services—a privatisation due to take place weeks before the date of the next general election.
	The right hon. Gentleman hinted that investment was dependent on that happening, but will he acknowledge that the planned investment in the east coast main line, to be delivered by Network Rail, and the new generation of inter-city trains will happen regardless of this privatisation? Is it not the case that Directly Operated
	Railways has reinvested all of its £40 million profit in the east coast service on top of the £640 million paid to Government, with every pound of profit going back in for the benefit of passengers? That profit will, under the Secretary of State’s new plans, be shared with shareholders in future. Instead of talking down the current operator of the east coast, will he join me in praising the team there for the work they have done, and think again about his plans?
	Will the Secretary of State update the House on the latest cost of the franchising fiasco, not least since his Department appears to be facing legal action from several more train operating companies? Will he correct the claim in his Department’s press notice today that this is the first time that a full franchise timetable has been published? I have with me the previous full timetable that was inherited from the previous Government and republished by his Government. Does he accept that what has changed is simply the fact that all the competitions have now been delayed?
	The Secretary of State has also changed the proposed order of the competitions, leading in some cases to very long extensions to existing contracts. What is his thinking behind that decision? Will he clarify the role of the new franchising advisory board that Richard Brown recommended in his review and is now to chair? The first version of the written ministerial statement this morning stated that it would be a cross-industry body and that it would support bidders, but the corrected version appears to have dropped those claims. What, then, is it to do exactly?
	What has happened to the Government’s previous enthusiasm for devolution? Will the right hon. Gentleman update the House on discussions with transport authorities covering the Northern and TransPennine franchises and services in the midlands? Does he still anticipate devolving responsibility at the revised start date for these franchises? Have the Government given further consideration to the calls from the Mayor of London and Transport for London for devolution of the remaining former Network SouthEast services?
	For the sake of passengers, taxpayers and those working across the rail industry, the whole House wants to see us get beyond the problems of the past year. I wish the Secretary of State well in doing that, but I urge him to focus his efforts on getting back on track the bits of the system that need fixing, rather than those that do not.

Patrick McLoughlin: I thank the hon. Lady for her response to my statement. It was not quite as warm as that of the CBI, Passenger Focus or the British Chambers of Commerce, which were much fuller in their acknowledgement of our putting the future for the rail industry so clearly.
	The hon. Lady has obviously forgotten what the last Labour Secretary of State, the noble Lord Adonis, said on 9 February 2010:
	“The Government believe that the ability of private sector operators to attract more passengers, grow the market, improve the service and receive revenue benefits of such actions is a key element in the current franchise model and one of the reasons for the significant growth delivered in recent years.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 9 February 2010; Vol. 717, c. WA122.]
	It is certainly true that we are talking about a huge growth in rail traffic and rail transportation, with people relying on the railways. I could go on to quote—but I know you prefer shorter answers, Mr Speaker—the
	right hon. Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan) who occupied my position before the last general election, as he praised the role of franchising.
	I believe that the east coast line should be the first under the new system. I pay tribute to the work done by Directly Operated Railways, which has operated it, but when the hon. Lady talks about figures, she should look at the track access charges paid in control period 3 by National Express when it ran the east coast line. It paid £210 million in track access charges, whereas DOR now has to pay its track access charges of £92 million. [Interruption.] I can tell the shadow Leader of the House that that was paid in the year to which I referred.
	That explains why we have set out a very clear set of proposals about where we are going, notifying the industry about the future, which I think is a bright one, and setting out the huge investment that we—and, indeed, Network Rail—are putting into the rail industry.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr Speaker: Order. A great many hon. and right hon. Members are seeking to catch my eye, but I remind the House that a further statement is to follow and then no fewer than three Back-Bench-inspired debates to which 48 Members wish to contribute. There is therefore a premium on brevity for Back and Front-Bench Members alike.

Cheryl Gillan: It is evident from today’s announcements that the Secretary of State’s Department will be under a great deal of pressure to deliver a vast programme of infrastructure projects. That pressure has obviously been intensified by the west coast main line franchise failure and of course the recent judicial review failure on the consultation process for HS2. Given those failures, what reassurances can the Secretary of State give us that his Department is still not overstretched and under-resourced?

Patrick McLoughlin: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for what I think was support at least for what I am doing on franchising. She talks about judicial reviews, but it is fair to say that of the 10 judicial reviews on HS2, the Department was found not to be wanting in nine cases. Only one judicial review went against us, and I am fully prepared to accept it. I wish the protesters, too, would accept the decisions made by the courts.
	I can assure my right hon. Friend that my Department has the resources, and I am mindful of what Sam Laidlaw said in his report about what needed to be put into operation, and we have done that. I think that the Government’s setting up of the franchising advisory board was important—I am sorry that I failed to respond to the hon. Lady’s point about it earlier. It will report directly to the Government and to my advisory board on how the franchises are doing. I am sorry that a mistake was put out in one of the earlier press notices.

Thomas Docherty: I am disappointed that there has been no mention of the word “fares” in any of the statements so far. Will the Secretary of State clarify what he will do to bring down fares, and what he will do about staffed ticket offices?

Patrick McLoughlin: I think the hon. Gentleman will know that we are undertaking a full review of fares. That will report later this year, probably in June; the date may move a bit, but I hope it will report in June. He will make his points on fares during that review. However, I would point out that, on a number of routes, cheap fares are available if people book in advance.

John Leech: By deciding to refranchise the east coast main line, we risk not being able to assess whether the public sector or the private sector is best for the passenger, the taxpayer and the railways in general. Surely as a minimum, therefore, we should allow Directly Operated Railways to bid for the franchise.

Patrick McLoughlin: That is not the case—Directly Operated Railways is not a company in its own right; it is a company owned by the Department for Transport. We will certainly be able to see how the companies are doing. The process will be open. I have already seen reports, although I have not had it confirmed, that Virgin will put in a bid for the east coast main line, and a lot of people were very happy with the service they received on the west coast main line.

Mark Lazarowicz: On that very point, given that Directly Operated Railways is owned by the Department for Transport, surely the Secretary of State could instruct Directly Operated Railways to put in a public sector comparative bid so that we can judge who will provide best value for money and best value for the customers.

Patrick McLoughlin: I would just point out to the hon. Gentleman, who has been in the House some time, that he was very happy to support a Government whose Secretary of State said:
	“I do not believe that it would be in the public interest for us to have a nationalised train operating company indefinitely”. —[Official Report, House of Lords, 1 July 2009; Vol. 712, c. 232.]
	I agree.

Stewart Jackson: The east coast main line is integral to the economy of Peterborough, and my constituents are concerned about value for money, punctuality and cleanliness. The Secretary of State rightly mentions the PAC report, which found that this Government inherited systemic lack of leadership and of oversight, miscalculation of risk capital and failure to heed legal advice. Is he absolutely convinced that, in respect of the east coast main line, we have learnt those lessons and that mistakes will not be made again?

Patrick McLoughlin: I can certainly assure my hon. Friend that we have learnt a number of lessons as a result of what happened with the west coast franchise. I well understand the importance to his constituents of the service that is provided on the east coast main line. It will be one of the first lines to get the new intercity express programme trains, which are due to come into service in 2018-19.

Pat Glass: As a north-east MP, I have been approached by a number of the companies that hope to bid for the east coast line, all of which are backed by foreign countries. Why does the Secretary of
	State think that it is not okay for the Government to run British railways, but it is okay for the French, German and Dutch to run them?

Patrick McLoughlin: I think I pointed out clearly in the statement the vast growth we have seen in the railways. I do not think that that would have happened without privatisation. We have seen levels of investment that were not seen beforehand. I point out to the hon. lady the simple fact that I inherited the system of franchising that operated under the previous Government.

Rob Wilson: I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement. Can he give a bit more detail on how he will increase competition and improve efficiency on the railways?

Patrick McLoughlin: Reading station, in my hon. Friend’s constituency, has seen a major refurbishment. That will make a huge difference. There will be closures over Easter, but more platforms will open and the work at the station will conclude in two years. About £800 million has been invested. We would not be investing that kind of money if we were not getting a good return for the passenger, his constituents and those who are served further along that line by First Great Western.

Hugh Bayley: Passengers on the east coast main line have twice suffered the catastrophic collapse of a private franchise. What guarantee can the Secretary of State give that whichever company gets the new franchise will not collapse, and will the railway headquarters remain in York?

Patrick McLoughlin: As for where the headquarters will be, that will depend on the case that is put forward by the various companies that I hope will compete for the franchise. The hon. Gentleman is right: two franchises collapsed under the previous Government, so that and this Government have both had some problems with franchising. I hope we have learnt our lessons. The rail industry has become a lot better at competing for these franchises.

Martin Vickers: The Secretary of State rightly spoke of the innovation and ambition that he expects from the new franchise companies. Can he assure me that that innovation and ambition will extend to providing services off the east coast main line, most notably to Cleethorpes?

Patrick McLoughlin: I am certainly willing to discuss in greater detail with my hon. Friend the services to his constituency, which I know have been very badly disrupted because of earth movements, which must be put right; the work is taking longer than we would have hoped.

Graham Jones: The Secretary of State says that success on the railways has been achieved because of privatisation. The rolling stock in east Lancashire must be among the worst in the UK—it is absolutely dreadful. Privatisation has certainly not worked. The northern franchise is coming up, so what will he do to ensure that my constituents and others in east Lancashire benefit from that success?

Patrick McLoughlin: A lot of rolling stock has been and is being ordered. I hope to see a roll-out to all areas, including the hon. Gentleman’s constituency.

Iain Stewart: I very much welcome the statement as a sensible way forward for franchising, but may I urge my right hon. Friend to use the temporary extension of the west coast franchise to urge Virgin and London Midland to work together temporarily to ease overcrowding on services from Euston, in the evening peak at least, until the full franchise is let and London Midland’s new train order comes through?

Patrick McLoughlin: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who follows this subject particularly closely, not just for his constituents but as a member of the Select Committee on Transport. I know that he sent me and my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department for Transport a fairly comprehensive letter, which I hope to respond to shortly, and I will see what can be done.

Ian Mearns: This morning, a statement by the Secretary of State’s own company, Directly Operated Railways, on the east coast main line said:
	“Since 2009, the East Coast business has been transformed. The Company has returned more than £640 million in cash to the taxpayer”.
	That is not because of privatisation, but because the public sector bailed out the private sector. There is huge support for continued public ownership. The private sector has already let down the travelling public on this route twice. Why risk it again when we are returning so much money to the taxpayer?

Patrick McLoughlin: I was simply referring to what was said by the Secretary of State in the previous Government. It was a short-term measure. By putting out the franchise to the private sector, there will be better services. That is what I am interested in. I am not particularly interested in who owns it. I am interested in getting better services to the hon. Gentleman’s constituents, who want to take advantage of them.

Nigel Mills: Although I welcome the new station for Derbyshire, can the Secretary of State assure me that it will not be serviced at the expense of two other stations on that line, namely, Alfreton and Langley Mill?

Patrick McLoughlin: I think that that was a welcome for the new station and for the greater investment. Of course one always has to strike a balance when these cases are put forward, but I think that Ilkeston, Derbyshire county council and my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Jessica Lee) made a strong case for why Ilkeston should be successful. The case was judged by a panel that did not include me, and I am very pleased that Ilkeston has been successful.

Julie Hilling: So much for the Government’s grand promises to radically change franchising—only three franchises will be let before the next election. Some of the extension periods are enormous, following the extensions that operators have already had. What guarantees has the Secretary of State had that there will be investment by those companies during the extension periods?

Patrick McLoughlin: I can assure the hon. Lady that there will be investment during those periods. In anything where I negotiate directly in awarding contracts, I look at the way services can be improved, and I hope to be able to make a statement shortly on some of those particular services.

Tracey Crouch: The Secretary of State will be aware that Southeastern is consistently one of the worst performing and most expensive train-operating companies in the country. Can he therefore explain why it has been given the longest extension—50 months? Can he assure my constituents that the extension is not a reward for failure? What opportunity will passengers have to engage in the process of direct awards as it is finalised?

Patrick McLoughlin: None of these direct awards will be made without getting the maximum we can out of the companies, talking to them and getting improvements in services. Where there have been let-downs, I will certainly want the companies concerned to address those problems.

Kelvin Hopkins: May I suggest to the Secretary of State that there is indeed a public sector comparator for Britain’s railways: the nationalised railway systems on the continent of Europe? McNulty found that they are up to 40% cheaper to run than ours. We have the highest fares in Europe and a ballooning public subsidy. Is not keeping the railways in the private sector just driven by ideology and a desire to put public money into private pockets?

Patrick McLoughlin: I am somewhat surprised—I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman was expressing support for the McNulty recommendation that we should take costs out of the railways. I did not expect such support from the hon. Gentleman, but any help I can get, I am always happy to bag.

Stephen Gilbert: The First Great Western franchise runs old trains with no wi-fi, and often no food, through run-down stations. Commuters in Cornwall and Devon would welcome average-speed rail, let alone high-speed rail. What can the Secretary of State do to push investment in this route before July 2016?

Patrick McLoughlin: I know the hon. Gentleman was unable to attend my meeting with First Great Western because of other engagements. I am very keen to improve services, particularly in his part of the country. I am going there in a little while to look at those services first hand, and I will certainly pass on the representations he has made when I have discussions with First Great Western—and Network Rail, as both are involved.

Michael Weir: Can the Secretary of State give a cast-iron guarantee that any east coast main line franchisee will at the very least be obliged to retain the existing level of service north of Edinburgh through my constituency to Aberdeen?

Patrick McLoughlin: That is something I need to talk to the Scottish Government about.

Jason McCartney: I welcome the certainty today’s statement brings and the opening of the east coast main line franchise. Can my right hon. Friend confirm that passenger gain will be at the forefront of the franchising process?

Patrick McLoughlin: I assure my hon. Friend that we are going to take passengers’ views very much into account in this system. That has not happened before, and today Passenger Focus has welcomed that development. It is part of the judgement that we must make when considering whether franchises are achieving their targets.

Katy Clark: Is the Secretary of State aware that tomorrow, to mark the 50th anniversary of Beeching, passenger groups and trade unions will demonstrate outside 80 railway stations against privatisation and job losses? Will he protect passenger safety and rule out job losses on the railways?

Patrick McLoughlin: I am not sure the hon. Lady was listening to my statement. I pointed out that we have had a better safety record on our railways in the past few years than for a number of years, and we are one of the safest rail operators in Europe. Jobs have been created as a result of more people using the railways. Privatisation has doubled the number of people using the railways. I would have expected the hon. Lady to welcome that, and unions to be out welcoming it too.

Priti Patel: In the light of the 27-month extension that has been given to the Greater Anglia franchise, what improvements to services will be appended to the existing franchise as a condition, so that local commuters see improvements to the service before the next franchise comes up?

Patrick McLoughlin: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who, along with colleagues from the Greater Anglia area, have given me a pamphlet setting out the changes being made. The Minister of State, Department for Transport, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr Burns), does not lose an opportunity to tell us how we must improve the services used by not only my hon. Friend’s constituents, but his.

Tom Blenkinsop: The Secretary of State’s response to my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Hugh Bayley) was disturbing. He said that he was not bothered who would run the franchise or where they came from, and could not confirm where such a company would be headquartered. Can he not use the tendering process to ensure that these details are nailed down and that the headquarters are in the United Kingdom?

Patrick McLoughlin: I fear that the hon. Gentleman is taking me out of context. What I said was that my main concern is the service to the passenger, which I care very much about and want to see improve. The location of the headquarters will be up to the individual franchisees when they put their case forward, and they may make strong representations.

Philip Hollobone: The Secretary of State and I, and our constituents, use the midland main line. Will he confirm when the franchise is up for
	renewal, and will he allow prospective bidders to come forward with proposals for new electric trains, instead of the Department insisting that they use recycled trains from other lines?

Patrick McLoughlin: The date of the new contract for East Midlands will be mid-way through 2017, and a direct-operated tender deal will come to fruition in 2015. I hope my hon. Friend accepts that the fact that electrification of that line is included in next set of Network Rail works shows our commitment to it. I know how important—

Maria Eagle: In the next Parliament.

Patrick McLoughlin: The hon. Lady says that, but the process starts in 2014, which is in this Parliament. I can assure her that 2014 will be in this Parliament, not the next Parliament, in which case we will be electrifying that line.

Mr Speaker: Before she attends to her next pressing commitment, let us hear from Catherine McKinnell.

Catherine McKinnell: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I agree with the Secretary of State that if our country is to compete on jobs and growth, we need a transport infrastructure that is second to none. Can he therefore reassure me that today’s announcement is in no way driven by the view expressed by the chief executive of the North Eastern local enterprise partnership that there is no need to invest in north-east transport, and that he does not share that view?

Patrick McLoughlin: There is every need to invest in transport across the United Kingdom, and LEPs have a very important role to play. I have not seen the exact quote, and I should like to see it in context.

Heather Wheeler: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on today’s statement, particularly the great news about Ilkeston station, which will immediately transform and regenerate the area by providing connectivity. Is this the new dawn for the National Forest line—the old Ivanhoe line; can we look forward to that, too?

Patrick McLoughlin: I am sure I will hear a lot more about the Ivanhoe line from my hon. Friend. I am pleased that she welcomes the opening of the station at Ilkeston, along with the other two stations I have announced today. There will be further work on that, but she is right: the fact that I, as Transport Secretary, have appeared at the Dispatch Box today is a reflection of Members wanting more services. That is why it is so important that we get the investment levels right and the train companies operating the kind of services passengers want.

Diana Johnson: Can the Secretary of State confirm that the open access slot on the east coast main line will still be available to services such as Hull Trains and will not be rolled up in any franchise tender document?

Patrick McLoughlin: Yes.

Duncan Hames: Wiltshire’s passenger rail offer stands to benefit from a multi-million pound grant from the coalition Government’s local sustainable transport fund. Now that the future of the franchise is clear, what is the Secretary of State’s advice to the promoter, Wiltshire council, and to First Great Western? Is it more “wait and see”, or that they should now get on with it?

Patrick McLoughlin: I think I would need a bit more notice before answering that question. If my hon. Friend writes to me, I will look at the issues in more detail. [Interruption.] The Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Norman Baker), says, “Just get on with it”.

Henry Smith: I very much welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement. Thameslink and Southern Railway recently announced new rolling stock to operate from the four stations within my constituency. Can he assure me that the changes to rail franchising announced today will not affect the delivery of that rolling stock?

Patrick McLoughlin: It certainly should not affect the delivery of the new trains. I know of no reason why it should and if I am wrong, I will obviously write to my hon. Friend.

Penny Mordaunt: Portsmouth’s experience of franchises awarded under the last Government was that the rolling stock was downgraded from the agreement. When will passenger comfort and service standards be written into the agreements, to ensure that passengers have access to a toilet and that commuters are not crippled by suburban rolling stock being used on main line routes?

Patrick McLoughlin: I am very disturbed to hear what my hon. Friend says, and I will certainly look into her points and get back to her in more detail in the very near future.

Stephen Mosley: There have been massive improvements on the west coast main line since privatisation and Virgin, but one way to improve things in the future—to continue improving competition and to keep down costs—would be by encouraging more operators to enter the market. Is there anything in my right hon. Friend’s statement that would encourage open access operators to come in on more existing services?

Patrick McLoughlin: There are some open access services, to which the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) referred, on the east coast main line. I believe that applications for other open access services are with the Office of the Rail Regulator at the moment. I am happy to look at those and act on advice when I get it from the rail regulator.

Mark Pawsey: Rail users in Rugby will welcome the Secretary of State’s announcement about the Virgin franchise being extended on the west coast main line. Will he reassure my constituents that an extra 29 months will be enough to encourage Virgin to continue to invest in the railway?

Patrick McLoughlin: I know that Virgin is keen to continue with investments on that line and is happy to receive representations, both from my hon. Friend and from me, if good cases are made for investment that has a positive return.

Rehman Chishti: I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. May I also thank him for reducing train fares in the south-east by reducing the retail prices index plus 3% provision to RPI plus 1%? Under the previous Government, Southeastern had RPI plus 3% whereas the rest of the country had RPI plus 1%, and that was exceptionally unfair.

Patrick McLoughlin: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that. The truth is that we are putting massive further investment into the railways. That has to be paid for by both the fare payer and the taxpayer, but it is right that we try to get that balance right. I am pleased that the Chancellor was able to take the increases down to RPI plus 1%, not only for this year, but for next year.

Marcus Jones: I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement and his intent to put the interests of passengers at the heart of rail franchising. The best interests of rail passengers in my constituency would be served by the reinstatement of fast off-peak services to Nuneaton, which were taken away by the previous Labour Government in 2008. Will he come to Nuneaton and meet me to discuss this vital issue at greater length?

Patrick McLoughlin: I am certainly more than happy to meet my hon. Friend at Nuneaton station. I believe that a date is going in my diary this afternoon—if it was not already, it will be now.

Therese Coffey: Suffolk commuters will be disappointed by the delay, although they are used to it as passengers, even though things have improved under Abellio. Will my right hon. Friend assure me that this will not deter or delay the needed investment in the freight line from Felixstowe to Nuneaton?

Patrick McLoughlin: The announcements I have made today will have nothing to do with the freight line. Again, I make the point to my hon. Friend that we are seeing not only an increase in passenger numbers, but a huge increase in the amount of freight using our railways—I believe that the figure is about 60%. I know that most colleagues and the general public welcome that very much.

Mr Speaker: Order. Questions from 34 Back Benchers were answered by the Secretary of State in 25 minutes of exclusively Back-Bench time, which is an impressive record. Might I suggest that rather than sending his ministerial colleagues an Easter egg, the Secretary of State should send a DVD of the statement and the exchanges on it, which will be a great example for them to follow in the future?

Huw Irranca-Davies: On a point of order—

Mr Speaker: The hon. Gentleman wants to raise a point of order, but I am afraid that he will have to be patient. There is another statement, and statements come before points of order, as the hon. Gentleman, having been here 11 years, should know.

UK Border Agency

Theresa May: I think the words “follow that one” come to mind, Mr Speaker.
	With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the future of the UK Border Agency. Since 2010, the Government have been getting to grips with the chaotic immigration system we inherited. We have introduced a limit on economic migration from outside the EU, cut out abuse of student visas and reformed family visas—as a result, net migration is down by a third. We have also started to get to grips with the performance of the organisations that enforce our immigration laws: through the Crime and Courts Bill, we are setting up a National Crime Agency with a border policing command; the UK Passport Service continues to operate to a high standard; and since we split the Border Force from UKBA last year, 98% of passengers go through passport control within target times and Border Force meets all its passenger service targets.
	However, the performance of what remains of UKBA is still not good enough. The agency struggles with the volume of its casework, which has led to historical backlogs running into the hundreds of thousands; the number of illegal immigrants removed does not keep up with the number of people who are here illegally; and while the visa operation is internationally competitive, it could and should get better still. The Select Committee on Home Affairs has published many critical reports about UKBA’s performance. As I have said to the House before, the agency has been a troubled organisation since it was formed in 2008, and its performance is not good enough.
	In truth, the agency was not set up to absorb the level of mass immigration that we saw under the last Government. That meant that it has never had the space to modernise its structures and systems, and get on top of its work load. I believe that the agency’s problems boil down to four main issues: the first is the sheer size of the agency, which means that it has conflicting cultures and all too often focuses on the crisis in hand at the expense of other important work; the second is its lack of transparency and accountability; the third is its inadequate IT systems; and the fourth is the policy and legal framework within which it has to operate. I want to update the House on the ways in which I propose to address each of those difficulties.
	In keeping with the changes we made last year to the UK Border Force, the Government are splitting up the UK Border Agency. In its place will be an immigration and visa service, and an immigration law enforcement organisation. By creating two entities instead of one, we will be able to create distinct cultures. The first will be a high-volume service that makes high-quality decisions about who comes here, with a culture of customer satisfaction for business men and visitors who want to come here legally. The second will be an organisation that has law enforcement at its heart and gets tough on those who break our immigration laws.
	Two smaller entities will also mean greater transparency and accountability, and that brings me to the second change I intend to make. UKBA was given agency status in order to keep its work at an arm’s length from
	Ministers—that was wrong. It created a closed, secretive and defensive culture. So I can tell the House that the new entities will not have agency status and will sit in the Home Office, reporting to Ministers. In making these changes it is important that we do not create new silos. That is why we are creating a strategic oversight board for all the constituent parts of the immigration system—immigration policy, the UK Passport Service, the UK Border Force and the two new entities we are creating. That oversight board will be chaired by the Home Office permanent secretary.
	We will also work to make sure that each of the organisations in the immigration system shares services, including IT, because the third of the agency’s problems is its IT. UKBA’s IT systems are often incompatible and are not reliable enough. They require manual data entry instead of automated data collection, and they often involve paper files instead of modem electronic case management. So I have asked the permanent secretary and Home Office board to produce a new plan, building on the work done by Rob Whiteman, UKBA’s chief executive, to modernise IT across the whole immigration system.
	The final problem I raised is the policy and legal framework within which UKBA has operated. The agency is often caught up in a vicious cycle of complex law and poor enforcement of its own policies, which makes it harder to remove people who are here illegally. That is why I intend to bring forward an immigration Bill in the next Session of Parliament that will address some of these problems. The changes I have announced today are in keeping with the successes of this Government’s reforms so far. We are reducing net migration and we are improving the performance of the organisations that enforce our laws, but UKBA has been a troubled organisation for so many years. It has poor IT systems, and it operates within a complicated legal framework that often works against it. All those things mean that it will take many years to clear the backlogs and fix the system, but I believe the changes I have announced today will put us in a much stronger position to do so. I commend this statement to the House.

Yvette Cooper: Today we have had a statement made rather in haste by the Home Secretary after yesterday’s major speech from the Prime Minister barely mentioned these reforms. Only after the Prime Minister’s speech was dismissed in the media as “smoke and mirrors”, as “unravelling” and as allowing “politics to trump policy” and only after yesterday’s damning report from the Home Affairs Committee on the effectiveness of the UK Border Agency has the Home Secretary suddenly decided to rush this statement out before the Easter recess.
	The Home Secretary is right that action is needed to sort out problems at UKBA, which has had a series of problems over many years. We would have some sympathy with her proposals, but the problem is that she refuses to recognise that problems with enforcement and effectiveness at UKBA have got worse, not better on her watch. Enforcement has got worse, visa delays have got worse and 50% fewer people are being refused entry at ports and borders. She says that the number of illegal immigrants removed does not keep up with the number who are here legally, but that is because she is letting
	rather more of them in. The number of people absconding through Heathrow passport control has trebled and the number being caught afterwards has halved on her watch.
	We have had a 16% drop in the number of foreign prisoners deported, we have had a big drop in the number of employers being fined for employing illegal workers, and what is her remedy today? She plans to split UKBA into two different organisations. We have been here before. She has already split UKBA once: just 12 months ago she split it into the Border Agency and the Border Force and made a lot of promises. The Minister for Immigration would like us to believe that it has all gone hunky dory and that things are much better since then, but what has happened since last year’s split? Queues at the borders went up and the Border Force presided over some of the longest queues our airports have seen, with people waiting more than two hours to get their passports checked.
	Things got worse at the Border Agency, too. The Select Committee’s report showed a 20% increase in the backlog of asylum cases in three months, a 53% increase in number of asylum cases waiting more than six months compared with the previous year, an increase in delays for tier 1 and tier 4 in-country visa applications compared with the previous three months and 59,000 cases not even entered on the database. As the Committee said, 28,000 visa applications were not processed on time in one three-month period—that is two thirds of visa applications not processed on time. In the words of the Committee:
	“The Agency must explain to Parliament what has gone wrong throughout 2012”.
	The Home Secretary’s reforms and her cuts are what have gone wrong throughout 2012, so why should we believe that the latest round of reforms will do any better?
	The Home Secretary has cut UKBA’s budget by 34% since the election, so little wonder it is struggling to keep up. Will she answer the following questions? When will the reforms be completed and how much they will cost? Her last reforms to split the Border Force and the Border Agency cost money rather than saving money. How many more illegal migrants will be deported as a result of the reforms? The figure has dropped by 20% since the election. How much will it increase by as a result of the reforms? How long will legitimate migrants have to wait for their visas? Will those delays be cut or will they increase? How long will the waits on asylum claims be? There was a 50% increase in long waits last year. What will she get that down to? These are the practical questions to which we want answers.
	So far under this Home Secretary, the only strategy we have had for border control has been cuts and cuts, splits and splits. But performance has got worse. When she was in opposition, she said to a former Immigration Minister:
	“I’m sick and tired of government ministers…who simply blame other people when things go wrong.”
	So, will she recognise the things that have gone wrong since the election on her watch and give us practical information about and targets for putting them right and tell us what the improvements in performance will be?
	We have had a lot of rhetoric on immigration from the Home Secretary but—this is really important—we need her to get the basics right and to do it now.

Theresa May: I am afraid to say that, yet again, we received a characteristic response from the shadow Home Secretary. We still have not had an apology for Labour’s mass uncontrolled immigration, and we have had no apology today for the state in which the previous Labour Government created and then left the Border Agency.
	I can reveal to the House today, however, that the shadow Home Secretary now has an immigration policy. In a recent article for PoliticsHome, she said:
	“We need much stronger action against illegal immigration to be a priority.”
	I am sure that everyone in the House would agree, but how does the shadow Home Secretary propose to get there? We need, she said, a “taskforce”. So, that is it. That is how the Opposition think that we will get control of our immigration system: the classic new Labour solution of a taskforce.
	After all the comments the right hon. Lady made, let us remember who we have to thank for the structure that is being dealt with today. The plans to create UKBA were set out in a paper published by the Cabinet Office in November 2007. Who was the Minister for the Cabinet Office at the time? None other than her boss, the Leader of the Opposition.
	The right hon. Lady cited a number of figures and raised a range of issues. She referred to the fact that, to use her terms, two thirds of visas were not processed on time. I have news for her: more than 90% of visas are processed within the performance target time. She referred to clearing up the backlogs, which originated with the Government of whom she was a member. I will respond to the point, nevertheless. The structural changes that we are making today will make for better-run organisations with greater clarity and greater focus, with more transparency, more accountability and stronger management. That, as we have seen with the Border Force, will deliver better performance; but it is not the only answer, which is why I have also referred to the need for us to change the law, deal with the IT systems and improve the processes in the organisation. It will take time, but today’s announcements are an important start.
	The right hon. Lady made a number of references to the Border Force and its performance. Until I took the Border Force out of UKBA last year, it was not possible to tell what its performance was. The Vine report, published last year, showed that checks were being suspended routinely and without permission for many years. That is no longer the case, thanks to the changes that I made.
	The right hon. Lady cited numerous statistics about the performance of the Border Agency, but I suggest that she should have listened to my statement. I know that the performance of the Border Agency is not good enough. It never has been. That is why we are making the changes that I have announced today. The question for the right hon. Lady is whether or not she supports those changes.
	The right hon. Lady asked when the changes will be made. The agency status will be removed at the beginning of April, and I shall return to the House with a further statement on the detail of the structural changes in due course. She said that there had been no reference until today to the possibility of changes to UKBA, but that is not right. If she had paid attention during Home Office questions yesterday, she would have heard my hon.
	Friend the Minister for Immigration refer to the fact that I would bring forward proposals. The Prime Minister also referred to that fact in his excellent speech on immigration yesterday.
	The right hon. Lady suggested that I have made this statement only in response to the report from the Home Affairs Committee that was published yesterday, but the decision has been taken after many hours of serious work over many months. If I restructured UKBA every time the Select Committee criticised it, I would have restructured it on more than one occasion. [Hon. Members: “Quarterly.”] My hon. Friends are suggesting that we would have done so quarterly, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert), who is a member of that Committee and knows that the restructurings would have been rather more numerous than the one that I am suggesting today.
	We must remember why the Border Agency got into this situation. After the mess that the previous Government made of the immigration system, John Reid turned up at the Home Office, called the immigration system not fit for purpose and, instead of fixing it, turned it into an agency at arm’s length to keep all the trouble away from Ministers. That was a soundbite with no substance; but under the right hon. Lady, the Labour party is regressing, as she does not even have a soundbite. The Government have a very clear plan to get net migration down to the tens of thousands and to sort out the enforcement of our immigration laws. The Opposition have nothing. She is not serious; they are not serious; and the British people know that they cannot trust Labour with immigration.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr Speaker: Order. I remind the House that, notwithstanding the notable interest in this statement, it is to be followed by three debates, to which no fewer than 48 right hon. and hon. Members wish to contribute, so there is a premium on brevity.

Cheryl Gillan: I hope that my right hon. Friend will take absolutely no advice from the Labour party, which delivered massive net immigration and an asylum backlog of 450,000 and put in no transitional arrangements for eastern Europeans when it was in office. I congratulate her on applying common sense by taking back responsibility at ministerial level for the security of this country’s borders. Can she confirm that placing the new bodies that she has announced today under the direct supervision of Ministers will ensure the maximum scrutiny of the work that they do?

Theresa May: I thank my right hon. Friend for her remarks. I can indeed confirm that we will be increasing scrutiny of the work that is done in relation to the immigration and visa system and immigration enforcement by bringing it into the Home Office, under a board chaired by the permanent secretary and reporting to Ministers. It is common sense and the right approach to deal with the problem caused by the creation of the agency under the previous Government.

Keith Vaz: May I congratulate the Home Secretary on putting the United Kingdom backlogs agency out of its misery by delivering this lethal injection today? May I join her in paying tribute to colleagues on the Home Affairs Committee, especially
	my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall North (Mr Winnick), for their work over the years in exposing the agency’s shortcomings? I put this option to the Minister for Immigration yesterday and he said that he would reflect on it, so coming back in 24 hours is quite an achievement. Will the Home Secretary give the House an assurance that uppermost in her mind will be the clearing of backlogs, strong and effective leadership and strong parliamentary scrutiny? Only then will we have an immigration system in which the British people can have confidence.

Theresa May: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his comments. As I said, the Home Affairs Committee has been assiduous in its consideration of matters relating to UKBA over the years and has had a consistent message about the need to deal with some of the problems. It is obviously important that we deal with backlogs. It is also important that we ensure that the agency makes the right decisions on an ongoing, day-to-day basis, that those decisions are made not just appropriately but fairly and that people are dealt with properly when they interact with the agency. That will take some time. I think that we share an aim about the quality of system provided, but it will take some time to ensure that we fix all the problems UKBA is having to deal with.

Mark Reckless: I welcome the Home Secretary’s statement. Will she say something about the staff, from Mr Whiteman, whom the Home Affairs Committee will see at 3 o’clock to discuss his terms and role, to staff across the agency? We have recently returned from Abu Dhabi, where they seem to have turned around the visa processing unit. I think that there are really good people in UKBA who just need to be better led.

Theresa May: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that issue, because it gives me an opportunity to say that many people working for UKBA are dedicated officers who do an excellent job. Certainly, in some of the examples that he and other members of the Home Affairs Committee will have seen, such as the overseas operations, real change has been brought about. The work of the vast majority of staff in the areas of enforcement or the immigration and visa system will not change, but there will of course be change for the directors general heading up those two operations. Obviously, those are personnel matters on which the permanent secretary will make announcements in due course.

Stephen McCabe: I welcome the Home Secretary’s decision to take the agency back into the Home Office, which I think is the right one. Which of the new units will inherit responsibility for dealing with the backlogs, and how will she ensure that this does not become yet another opportunity to loose case files, passports and other documents in the ritual buck passing with which we have all become too familiar?

Theresa May: The differentiation between the two units will be clear: the immigration and visa section will deal with decisions on whether people should be entitled to enter or remain in the UK; and at the point at which those cases are closed and people need to be removed, cases pass to the enforcement part of the operation. I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s comments on bringing
	the agency back into the Home Office—I suggest that he has more of a policy on the issue than Labour Front Benchers. We are very conscious that it is important to work out that separation, which is why I think that this clear-cut separation will help us to ensure that we do not see the sort of losses of files, passports and so forth that we have seen previously, so we have to look at the processes, too.

Julian Huppert: It will be a pleasure for the Home Affairs Committee no longer to have to report quarterly on ongoing problems within UKBA. I congratulate the Home Secretary on her decisive action. For too long the agency has stood in the way of a coherent, fair and credible immigration policy. My concern is that in 2006 the immigration and nationality directorate was spun out of the Home Office because it was not fit for purpose, had a vast backlog and was poorly led. We now have an agency that is still not fit for purpose, still has a vast backlog and still has leadership problems. How can she be so sure that it will work this time?

Theresa May: We have spent considerable time looking at what the right structure is for the agency. We have had the experience of working with the Border Force. If we look at its operation today, we see that it is in a different place from where it was previously. That experience has shown that if we can create a smaller entity that has a clearer management and focus on its activities, we can make progress, and that is exactly what we are doing by splitting the agency in this way.

John McDonnell: Is it not true that part of the problem is that ministerial attention has been diverted to policy stunts prepared for prime ministerial statements and speeches? Can the Home Secretary confirm that ministerial attention has recently been focused on discussions in the inter-ministerial group on barring migrant children from compulsory education? The Department for Education then intervened and the children’s rights adviser said:
	“If we were to withdraw the right of education from any children in the UK, regardless of their status, we would be hugely criticised for it by the UN. With the periodic review report due to be submitted in January 2014, this would be very controversial.”
	Can the Home Secretary confirm that statement?

Theresa May: We have been looking at public services across the board in relation to what we describe as the pull factors. We have focused on housing, health and the benefits system. We do not propose not having the provision of education for individual children, but the hon. Gentleman’s opening remark, which was that policy changes were about publicity stunts, is far from the truth. We have been sorting out a chaotic immigration system and immigration policy introduced by the previous Government that led to net migration in this country reaching hundreds of thousands a year. We aim to bring it down to tens of thousands. We have already seen net migration cut by a third. That is not a publicity stunt; it is a real benefit and a policy that the people of this country want to see.

Nicola Blackwood: I very much welcome the Home Secretary’s statement. Does she agree that one of UKBA’s main problems,
	apart from the inability to manage its data or communicate it correctly to the Home Affairs Committee, has been an identity crisis? It has tried to be an enforcement agency that pursues criminal investigations, but it has also tried to convey the message that Britain is open for business by offering a friendly customer service. Can she assure us that the new structure will fix that problem?

Theresa May: The aim of the new structure is that the two parts of the Home Office that will be dealing with these two areas of immigration policy will be focused more clearly on the roles within each part. The immigration and visa section will be focused clearly on giving an efficient and effective service on immigration and visa decisions, making the right decisions about who should be able to enter the country, but doing so in a way that gives individuals good customer service. The enforcement section will be able to focus clearly on the enforcement part. We are doing that precisely to get the focus my hon. Friend wants.

Hugh Bayley: From time to time, high-tech employers in my constituency ask for help with getting visas or work permits for highly skilled workers whom they desperately need for their businesses. If, in future, such workers do not have access to NHS care, there will be an increased cost either on the employer or the employee. Will the Government be reducing national insurance contributions for employers and employees in respect of those workers?

Mr Speaker: It is very hard to see the link with UKBA —[Interruption.] Well, it is a slightly strained connection, but we shall see, if the Home Secretary wants to give a brief reply.

Theresa May: It is a very strained connection. I understand that a similar point was raised in the urgent question yesterday and was responded to.

Tony Baldry: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that the immigration Bill that the Government will introduce in the next Session will seek to ensure that those who have no right to be within the jurisdiction are removed from it? Does she not think it a pity that the shadow Home Secretary does not have the same perspicacity as the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee?

Theresa May: I certainly agree with my hon. Friend’s latter point. Yes, the immigration Bill that I intend to introduce will look at a range of problems to do with deportation to ensure that we can remove from this country people who have no right to be here.

Gregory Campbell: The Home Secretary alluded to the setting up of the National Crime Agency with the border police command. Will she reassure the House that there will be ongoing discussions to try to ensure that the entirety of the United Kingdom is safeguarded, particularly the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic?

Theresa May: I recognise, Mr Speaker, that my referring to the National Crime Agency opened up the possibility for the hon. Gentleman’s question. I am well aware of the operation of the National Crime Agency in Northern Ireland. We want to ensure that the agency is able to do the job that it needs to do across the United Kingdom, and we are happy to continue discussions with those who share the same aim.

Michael Ellis: I congratulate the Home Secretary on her statement. Should not UKBA now join the long list of Labour’s immigration failures, including the Human Rights Act 1998, an immigration backlog of 450,000, out-of-control and increasing net immigration and a total lack of control of eastern European immigration?

Theresa May: My hon. Friend makes very good points. It is precisely because of the difficulty that Opposition Front Benchers have in defending their poor record on immigration that we hear them trying to go on the party political attack rather than accepting the necessary decisions to deal with our immigration system.

Seema Malhotra: Will the Home Secretary confirm her estimates of the cost of her reorganisation and whether it will be met from existing budgets?

Theresa May: I can assure the hon. Lady that any costs incurred in reorganisation will be met from existing budgets.

Shailesh Vara: Does my right hon. Friend agree that until the shadow Home Secretary apologises for Labour’s shambolic immigration policy when in government, anything that she or her party says on immigration lacks any credibility whatsoever?

Mr Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is always a most courteous Member, but his question suffers from the notable disadvantage that the Home Secretary has absolutely no responsibility for the matter in question. She is responsible for the Government’s policy but does not have any responsibility for the policy of the Opposition.

Angus MacNeil: As the Home Secretary’s colleague, the Minister for Immigration, knows, I have been dealing with the case of Gordon Murray, a local councillor and college lecturer from Stornoway, who is trying to get his pregnant Chinese wife and unborn child from China to the Hebrides before she is unable to fly. The Minister has been very helpful—Gordon Murray and I are grateful for that—but he was bequeathed a system that is excessively bureaucratic and intimidatory and, in this case, is still cruelly dividing his family. Can we have, as Mr Murray has asked, a system that puts people’s needs at the centre rather than numbers and quotas?

Theresa May: I understand that, as the hon. Gentleman said, my hon. Friend the Minister for Immigration has been dealing with this case. I want the immigration and visa part of the Home Office, as it will now become,
	to focus on customer service, but, of course, against the background of making the right decisions for individuals who apply to come to the UK.

Alec Shelbrooke: Many of my constituents work at the UK Border Agency in Leeds, as do many other people across Leeds. Will the Home Secretary reiterate what these changes mean to the people who work there? Will she comment on how they will be able to do their job more effectively and get the results that they strive to achieve?

Theresa May: We do not intend that as a result of these changes there will be changes to any of the UKBA’s current sites. Most people will continue to do the job that they have been doing. As I have said, many staff are doing that assiduously and with the right commitment. It should be easier for them to do their job in the future because that part of the organisation, when within the Home Office, will have a much clearer focus but will also be making decisions that will enable us to improve the IT system and the processes within the organisation.

William Bain: The Home Affairs Committee discovered a backlog of some 33,000 legacy asylum cases and found that 59,000 cases have not even been entered on to the computer system. Is not one of the major reasons for that the loss of staff and resources presided over by the Home Secretary since mid-2010? Will she pledge not to be so comprehensively out-manoeuvred by the Chancellor in the next spending review as she so clearly was in the previous one?

Theresa May: When the hon. Gentleman is thinking about figures he should remember that the Government inherited a backlog of half a million asylum cases. The Government have cleared that backlog.

Jane Ellison: I welcome the Home Secretary’s statement. Although we always find that we get great personal service from individual members of UKBA, she knows, because I have raised it with her before, that many people in my central London constituency find themselves frustrated by some of the current arrangements. Can she assure me that the new arrangements will make it easier for some high-performing people to get their visas more quickly and thus send a keen pro-business message?

Theresa May: I thank my hon. Friend for raising that in the House, as she has done with me directly. We certainly intend to ensure that the service provides a premium service for business people and others who may need to come here on a faster basis. Indeed, we are setting up in India the first super-premium service, which will provide a 24-hour visa service for individuals who need it.

Jim Shannon: I thank the Home Secretary for her statement. One of the biggest complaints in my office about the UK Border Agency is the processing of visas and passports, which often takes up to 12 months.
	Staff are always helpful, and we appreciate that, but what assurance can she give to my constituents, who are totally frustrated with the delays that they face?

Theresa May: I am very conscious that this is one of the issues that we have needed to address in relation to the processing of applications. Particular concerns have been raised with us about the length of time that it has been taking to process business applications for tier 2 workers to come to the UK. That is currently being dealt with inside UKBA. I believe that having a clearer focus on that part of the business, but also working overtime to improve the IT systems and processes within it, will lead to the sort of outcome to which the hon. Gentleman refers.

Philip Hollobone: Given that most asylum seekers come to our shores via other nations, what happened to the previous convention of returning these people to the last safe country from which they came? If that has lapsed, can we bring it back through the immigration Bill that the Home Secretary has promised?

Theresa May: My hon. Friend refers to the Dublin regulation, which does indeed enable a country to return an asylum seeker to the first country in the European Union that they entered. We are still able to do that, with the exception of one country—Greece—and we do.

Mark Lazarowicz: We all see in our surgeries lots of cases—sometimes dozens or hundreds of cases—of bona fide applicants who are waiting months and months, sometimes years and years, beyond the guidelines to get their applications dealt with. Can the Home Secretary assure us that the changes will lead to improvements in the near future for these people? We do not want this reorganisation merely to lead to more interim delay while it is put into effect.

Theresa May: I recognise the hon. Gentleman’s point about ensuring that the reorganisation does not lead to further problems in the short term. Like the longer-term changes to IT systems and processes, it is intended to try to deal with precisely some of the problems that he identified regarding the length of time taken to make decisions.

Rehman Chishti: Will the Secretary of State clarify whether the new system will quickly implement judicial decisions to deport foreign criminals back to their countries?

Theresa May: A number of problems are encountered when trying to deport foreign national prisoners back to their country of origin. The new enforcement command in the Home Office will be able to put greater focus and emphasis on the removal of those who no longer have a right to be here and the deportation of foreign national offenders who should be removed. There are other issues in such cases and those will be dealt with in the immigration Bill that I intend to bring forward.

Points of Order

Huw Irranca-Davies: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I apologise for standing pre-emptively earlier on. I was so excited by the number of statements and was wondering where the missing one was. Ash dieback is the biggest tree disease to hit this country since Dutch elm, and it has spread to 427 sites around the UK. We welcome today’s publication of the Chalara management plan, but it is available only on the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs website. The Government have briefed the press about the publication of the plan but have not informed the House about it, despite undertaking to present it to the House. I ask for your advice once again, Mr Speaker, on how the House can hold the Executive to account when they fail to deliver on what they have promised, which on this occasion was to bring the Chalara management plan that deals with ash dieback to the House for its consideration? Instead, it is only out there for the press and on the DEFRA website.

Mr Speaker: I am sorry to learn of what the hon. Gentleman has described in his point of order. What I would say to him is twofold. First, the Deputy Leader of the House is present on the Treasury Bench and will have heard the point that he has made. Secondly, there will be an opportunity in the upcoming general debate before the Adjournment for Members to raise this matter if they so wish. No other obvious remedies are available today, but if the hon. Gentleman wishes to have recourse to the Order Paper via the Table Office, I feel sure that he will do so.

Gareth Thomas: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I tabled a round robin question on 4 December last year asking how many computers, mobile telephones, BlackBerrys and other pieces of IT equipment had been lost or stolen in 2010-11 and 2011-12. I have received answers from every Department apart from the Cabinet Office. It was due to answer on 6 December. I chased an answer on 16 January and expected an answer on 21 January. I raised the matter at business questions on 7 February and the Leader of the House very kindly promised to endeavour to get me an answer. I still have not received an answer. What other options are available to me to try to hold this overbearing Executive to account?

Mr Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has just deployed one of the options, which is to air the matter on the Floor of the House in the presence and earshot of the Deputy Leader of the House. He has described a regrettable sequence of events. He and other Members know that, from the Chair, I attach great importance to timely and substantive replies to questions to Ministers. In this case, such a reply has clearly not been forthcoming. I hope that that point will speedily be communicated to the Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General, the right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr Maude). He or a member of his team should furnish the hon. Gentleman with the information that is required sooner rather than later.

Paul Flynn: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. This is the third point of order about Members trying to bring the Executive to account. There were stories in this morning’s paper that, contrary to the coalition agreement, large subsidies will be paid to the nuclear industry. There is a motion after the ten-minute rule Bill entitled “Financial Assistance to Industry” on which there can be no debate. On making inquiries, I found out that the matter was discussed upstairs. The information available to me is only that the sum is up to £20 million. I can find no details on whether that money will go to the nuclear industry. Is it appropriate that this matter should come before us if it is not possible for Members to discover what precisely it is about or to air our objection that it is anti-democratic and contrary to the coalition agreement?

Mr Speaker: During the next 10 minutes while the ten-minute rule motion is discussed, the hon. Gentleman may wish to avail himself of the opportunity to read the verbatim text of the debate on that matter in Standing Committee. If that does not satisfy him—I am not an optimist in these matters so far as the hon. Gentleman is concerned—he may wish to return to the matter. Whether it was a Standing Committee of which one needed to be a member to contribute, I do not know. If he was not a member of the Committee, I am saddened for him. I cannot offer any compensation for him today, but knowing the hon. Gentleman, he will return to this matter just as predictably as a dog to his bone. We will hear from him on these matters ere long. I know that that is not satisfactory, but that is the best that I can offer him on this, the last day before the Easter recess. If there are no further points of order, we come now to the ten-minute rule motion. This is the hon. Gentleman’s opportunity to do his reading.

UK Elected Representatives (Disclosure of Party Membership)

Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23)

David Hanson: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require individuals standing for elected office in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to declare any political party of which they are a member when registering to stand; and for connected purposes.
	The purpose of the Bill is simple. If enacted, it would mean that citizens who stand for elected office in the United Kingdom, whether in the European Parliament, the House of Commons, the Welsh Assembly, the Scottish Parliament or a county, district, town or community council, would have to declare any registered political party membership that they hold at the time that they submit their nomination papers.
	The Bill would apply to all of us. Those like myself and the many hon. Members in the Chamber today who are open about their political party membership will have no problem with the Bill. It will confirm to electors what they already know about us as candidates. Those who are genuinely independent of party membership, such as yourself, Mr Speaker, will equally have no problem with the Bill, because they too will be declaring what the public already know. The Bill is aimed at greater transparency for those who stand under the banner of an independent, but who are allied to a political party to the extent that they are a member of it.
	The genesis of the Bill goes back some time. When I was first elected to my local council—amazingly, it was 30 years ago in May—I noticed that a genial independent councillor who was elected in a very Tory ward always voted and spoke with Labour. When I asked him about it, he confessed that he was a member of the Labour party, but that he stood as an independent as he would
	“never have been elected as Labour”.
	I did not think that that was fair then and I do not think that it is fair now. Democracy is surely about people knowing what they are voting for, as far as is practicable.
	My interest in this issue was rekindled last year during the police and crime commissioner elections, particularly in my area of north Wales. A number of candidates stood for the post, including Labour, Conservative, UK Independence party and independent candidates. One of the independent candidates for the post was Winston Roddick QC. He was the successful candidate and is now operating as the police commissioner for north Wales. May I say at this point that I wish him well in that post and hope that he does a good job? My concerns are solely about transparency in the election.
	I knew of Mr Roddick before he became an independent candidate. He was a well respected senior civil servant in the Welsh Assembly and had twice been a Liberal parliamentary candidate. He was and still is a member of the Liberal Democrats, and yet he put himself forward under the banner of an independent before 500,000 voters in north Wales. That point was raised during the election, but it did not receive a high profile—nor, dare I say it, did the election itself. He received 25,175 votes on the first ballot on a turnout of less than 15% and 36,688 votes on the second and final ballot, and was elected.
	Interestingly, by comparison, the Liberal Democrats have never received more than 18,000 votes for the north Wales region in the four Assembly elections, which have had much bigger turnouts. Indeed, in 2011, they got just 11,000 votes on a 40% turnout, compared with Mr Roddick’s 25,000 votes when he stood as an independent. I contend, therefore that not having a party label helped his cause. The feedback afterwards included a tweet from a constituent of mine, which said:
	“I voted for Winston Roddick thinking he was independent and it now turns out he’s a liberal.”
	In that case, the winner has said that he will not take the whip. However, my contention is that it is very strange and a little unnerving that a fully paid-up party member can stand as an independent without resigning their membership and not be open about the values that they hold. Mr Roddick says that he was open about his candidature. In that case, I hope that he will support the aims of the Bill.
	What happened in north Wales is not unique. In the police and crime commissioner election in Devon and Cornwall, a former chairman of the Devon and Cornwall police authority and head of the Liberal Democrat group on the Association of Police Authorities stood as an independent. Again, there might be good reasons for that—dare I say it, but the public might not want to vote for a Liberal Democrat—but the point is that the individual was a member of the Liberal Democrats. Indeed, I checked the website today, and he is still the leader of the Liberal Democrats on his local council, having not stood as an independent in that election.
	The situation in the City of London corporation is the same, with most current councillors sitting as independents, despite being members of political parties. Only last week, an election was held for it, and although some candidates stood with party labels, many stood as independents, even though they had party cards in their back pockets. One independent winner is an officeholder of the City of London Conservative association.
	It could be worse. I do not think any of us would be comfortable with the idea of members of parties such as the British National party and others being able to stand as independents and have people vote for them as independents in good faith. In my own constituency in 2004, an individual was elected as an independent, but two years later, when the BNP’s membership was leaked, it turned out that he was a member. I am sure that the voters who put faith in him then might not have done so had they known his party allegiance. Across the country there will very shortly be elections where people will be standing as party members, but also as independents, and it is important that we have clarity and transparency on those issues.
	For those who worry about the potential infringement of civil liberties, let me be clear about what the Bill does not do. It does not prevent anyone from standing for election or from calling themselves an independent. It does not even prevent people from standing as independent despite being party members. It will, however, inject transparency into the system, so that no one can ever stand again as an independent, be in a party and not declare it. There is nothing wrong with being an independent councillor or MP. It is not my choice, but there is nothing wrong with it. It is deeply worrying, however, that people can stand as independent, despite having a party membership card in their back pocket. It presents
	a real problem for our democracy, because the values that influence parties might well influence the electorate, and if those values are hidden, the electorate might vote blind on those issues.
	I have raised this issue with the Government and had hoped for a positive response. Sadly, the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, the hon. Member for Norwich North (Miss Smith),has confirmed:
	“The Government has no plans to require those wishing to stand as independent candidates to disclose any political party membership they might hold at the time of nomination. It is for prospective candidates to decide whether they wish to stand independently or on behalf of a registered political party.”—[Official Report, 21 November 2012; Vol. 553, c. 498W.]
	That is a shame, but I hope that the Bill will be the start of a process that will shed light on this issue and allow the Government to come to a conclusion whereby independents will have to declare party membership if they hold it.
	My proposal would add transparency to our democracy and help ensure the public have the information they need to make an informed choice. It will not add undue stress or expense to the election procedure and could be done simply, without the need for a particularly big shake-up of electoral procedures. This small bit of information could go someway to ensuring that voters get what they think they are voting for, rather than for what they are actually voting for without realising it. My proposal would add one small, but important, dimension to the system. It would require that if someone stands as an independent, or under any label, without declaring a party membership, action would need to be taken. I propose that the election be declared void, the member disqualified and a by-election called. I ask for no further penalty than that. I simply ask that those individuals have the opportunity to face the electorate under their true colours.
	I believe that people should be public and proud about being members of the Labour party, and should not hide behind the banner of independence, if they hold a party membership. The Bill will provide some transparency. I am sure, as I have said, that there are examples across all parties, so I hope that this is not a party political point. I want transparency for all members. We should be proud of our democracy and how our elections operate. The suppression of such information is not good for our democratic system. I hope and believe that the House will share that view. I am pleased to have secured cross-party support from Liberal Democrat, Conservative and Labour Members, and I hope that nobody has anything to fear by it. I commend the motion to the House.

Christopher Chope: I had not intended to participate in this debate, but having heard the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson), I am driven to speak against the motion. I seek not to divide the House, but to put down a marker that the Bill would not have unanimous support. It would be a regulatory Bill cutting across the tradition of independence, particularly in parish and town councils, where people should not have to declare their party allegiance. It is perfectly legitimate that somebody stands for election
	to a parish or town council on the basis that they are independent, even if they are a member of a political party.
	The Bill implies that people who belong to political parties belong only to one political party. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman’s argument, which he put forward strongly, about the Liberal Democrats being duplicitous—I have no quarrel with him on that—but let us think of students. You, Mr Speaker, were once a student. Many of them join three or more political parties at the freshers fare in order to see which has the most attractive membership. That is a perfectly legitimate objective for many people who join political parties. It would be very confusing to the electorate if one of those students was to declare that they were a member of four political parties. Where would that leave the electorate?
	Having heard what the right hon. Gentleman said and having not intended to participate in the debate, all I can say is that I wish him well with the Bill, but I shall be opposing it in due course.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Ordered
	That Mr David Hanson, Ian Lucas, John Cryer, Rosie Cooper, Wayne David, Angela Smith, Sir Bob Russell, Mr Philip Hollobone, Craig Whittaker, Mr Virendra Sharma, Andrew Gwynne and Karl Turner present the Bill.
	Mr David Hanson accordingly presented the Bill.
	Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 3 May 2013, and to be printed (Bill 155).

Business without Debate

Delegated Legislation

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order 118(6) and Order of 4 March),

Financial Assistance to Industry

That this House authorises the Secretary of State to undertake to pay, and to pay by way of financial assistance under section 8 of the Industrial Development Act 1982, in respect of the Start-Up Loans scheme, sums exceeding £10 million and up to a cumulative total of £15.5 million.—(Mr Swayne.)
	Question agreed to.
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order 118(6),

Terms and Conditions of Employment

That the draft Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (Amendment) Order 2013, which was laid before this House on 24 January, be approved.—(Mr Swayne.)
	The House divided:
	Ayes 224, Noes 128.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Public Bodies

That the draft Public Bodies (The Office of Fair Trading Transfer of Consumer Advice Scheme Function and Modification on Enforcement Functions) Order 2013, which was laid before this House on 12 December 2012, be approved.—(Mr Desmond Swayne.)
	Question agreed to.

Diana Johnson: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Has a Home Office Minister notified you that they intend to make a statement to the House this afternoon? It is being reported in the media that the Home Office has announced plans to change the rules on disclosure of criminal convictions, including removing the need to disclose adult cautions after six years and convictions after 11 years if the person has not been imprisoned. Given that this is an important matter, the House should be consulted on it, so could a Minister clarify the situation?

Nigel Evans: I thank the hon. Lady for that point of order. I have not been notified that a Home Office Minister or, indeed, any other Minister intends to make a statement to the House today. Should that alter, the House will be informed in the usual way.

Backbench Business

Flood Insurance

[Relevant document: Oral evidence from the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, on Flood Funding, HC 970 i-iv.]

Nigel Evans: Before I call Mr Dominic Raab to move the motion, I inform the House that he will be able to speak for up to 10 minutes with up to two interventions, and there will be a five-minute limit on Back-Bench contributions, with the usual two interventions.

Dominic Raab: I beg to move,
	That this House notes the Environment Agency’s estimate that 570,000 properties in England and Wales are at significant risk of flooding; recognises the efforts of the insurance industry and past and present governments to reach agreement to ensure flood insurance will be made available to all homes and small businesses beyond June 2013; calls on the insurance industry to negotiate in good faith to conclude those arrangements; and further calls on the Government to acknowledge the need to provide some support for those arrangements and ensure that resilience and adaptation to flood risks and other natural hazards are amongst its highest environmental priorities.
	May I first thank the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee for granting this debate and the sponsors of the motion, who represent four parties across the House?
	Today’s debate comes just three months before the expiry of the statement of principles agreed by the previous Government with the Association of British Insurers. The statement governs the provision of insurance to properties that are at “significant risk” of flooding—that is, properties that have a one in 75 or greater chance of being flooded in any given year. With the deadline for agreement looming, Ministers and the ABI remain deadlocked in negotiations. The House will be only too aware that the consequences of failing to broker a deal would be devastating.
	If we were to move to an entirely free market model it is estimated that 1,113 businesses and homes in my constituency alone would face dramatic hikes in their premiums or even a refusal to insure. Nationwide, 215,000 more homes would face annual insurance premiums of more than £750. For owners who could not obtain affordable insurance, the risks are worse still. With a typical flood causing between £20,000 and £40,000 of damage per property, many small businesses and families would face crushing costs. Meanwhile, the Council of Mortgage Lenders warns:
	“Uncertainty about the future cost and availability of insurance may affect the ability to sell or obtain a mortgage on a property,”
	affecting up to 83,000 homes. Home insurance premiums are already rising as insurers prepare for a worst-case scenario. Constituents in Thames Ditton in my constituency are already reporting steep rises.
	We urgently need a new, sustainable, long-term agreement. As far as I am aware, the only proposal on the table is that from the ABI, namely its “Flood Re” insurance scheme.

Laurence Robertson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this very important subject. Does he agree that another factor to consider is the level of excesses that insurance companies charge? If they set the excess at £20,000, the family affected are, in effect, not insured.

Dominic Raab: I thank my hon. Friend for his timely intervention and I think that he is on point. We need a comprehensive deal covering all of the aspects of the insurance premium.

Andrew Smith: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Dominic Raab: I will not, because I need to make progress and, under the strictures of Mr Deputy Speaker, I will need to give way later.
	The “Flood Re” insurance scheme would create a non-profit fund to ensure that cover is available for the 2% of homes that are at significant risk of flooding. Like the current system, the model would be based on cross-subsidisation. High-risk home owners would pay higher premiums, subject to a cap, and benefit from a subsidy levied on lower risk properties. Today that subsidy costs the average property owner about £8 a year—that is the proportion of the insurance premium that they pay. Under “Flood Re” that would rise by an estimated £1. Those owning a band A property at significant risk of flooding would see a 15% increase in their premium, rising to 43% for more expensive homes. The point of the scheme, therefore, is to cushion the most vulnerable. In return, the insurance industry wants the Government to strengthen flood defences, provide access to flood risk assessments and enforce planning regulation on flood plains more rigorously.
	The parameters of a balanced deal are emerging. Ministers have, understandably, refused to sign any blank cheques, including for bankrolling “Flood Re” or for providing a temporary overdraft facility underwritten by the taxpayer. That would be difficult to justify at any time, but especially with our public finances under such acute strain.

Andrew Smith: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I strongly support the motion and congratulate him on securing the debate. Is it not important to bear it in mind that the insurance companies do not have a completely free hand in this, because they are required by state regulators to secure reinsurance on the risk that they take on? Unless there is some Government participation to cap that risk, it will be impossible to get it at an affordable price and the disaster that our constituents are threatened with will happen.

Dominic Raab: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention. He has touched on some of the technical aspects, to which I am sure the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon), will respond. It is clear that the state needs to be involved in this. This cannot be left solely to a free market. Even a free-market MP like me would accept that.
	It would be useful if Ministers could today explain their position on the gist of the “Flood Re” proposal, and any concerns they have now that the taxpayer is not
	being asked to underwrite the overdraft facility. One key issue is the balance of contributions by those owning properties at higher risk and ordinary insurance holders. Have Ministers considered the composition of the board of governors of the fund, and in particular the number and character of members who are independent of both the Government and the industry? How will the Government retain control and accountability over future increases in either the levy or ordinary premiums? Both aspects are important; it is question of balance.
	The “Flood Re” scheme inevitably invites comparison with models used elsewhere. In the United States, the national flood insurance programme is not funded on the basis of cross-subsidisation, but as a result was left $17 billion in the red after Hurricane Katrina. “Flood Re” as a model would avoid a situation in which the British taxpayer covers all losses the market will not insure—the Dutch Government have such a commitment. The “Flood Re” model is somewhere between the US and Dutch models.
	Alternative models have been proposed but are not in the negotiating mix between the ABI and the Government at this stage. One alternative presented by Marsh, the insurance broker, would involve mutualisation of 50% of flood claims among all home owners. That would pass back to home owners or the Government the risk of paying the remaining 50% of flood claims. What view have Ministers taken on that alternative?
	More broadly, the negotiations on flood insurance shed broader light on the UK’s wider environmental policy. The risks of flooding, which is effectively what we are debating, prompt a simple question: have we got our environmental priorities right? Met Office data show that four of the five wettest years on record have occurred since 2000. The Government’s chief scientist has warned that
	“in quite a short time scale…we are going to have more floods, we are going to have more sea surges and we are going to have more storms”.
	Strengthening flood defences should therefore be a top priority—both in its own right as a matter of sound policy, but also to contain the rising insurance premiums that have prompted today’s debate—and yet environmental resilience has been relatively low down the pecking order of UK environmental policy for more than a decade. By way of illustration, the cost to businesses and consumers of the inefficient green subsidies to solar and onshore wind through the renewables obligation will be £2.6 billion this financial year. That is almost as much as the DEFRA will spend on flooding and coastal defences over the entire five-year period of this Parliament. Those are skewed priorities. The Government ought to place greater emphasis on adapting to the reality of climate change—the environmental here and now—and spend less time speculating on technological winners that hike energy bills, particularly for the squeezed middle, without substantially decarbonising the UK economy.
	That points to a more systemic, bureaucratic problem, namely the lack of policy coherence between the Department of Energy and Climate Change and DEFRA since they were separated in 2008 by the previous Government. Too often, DEFRA feels like DECC’s more realistic but poorer cousin, and yet DEFRA is left to pick up the pieces when an environmental crisis strikes. Have Ministers considered re-merging the two Departments? That would integrate policy and realise
	at least £1 billion from cutting bureaucracy, which could be used to invest in flood defences as well as to pay off the deficit more quickly.
	The state has a role to play in managing acute and severe risks such as flooding. We need the Government to provide the right framework to meet UK energy demands, especially through nuclear power and shale gas; to invest in flood and coastal defences; and to strike the right deal with industry, and soon, to protect small businesses and vulnerable homes from soaring insurance premiums. I commend the motion to the House.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Nigel Evans: I call Rosie Cooper and remind the House that there is a five-minute speech limit.

Rosie Cooper: I commend the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab) and agree with most of his comments.
	On 7 November 2012 at Prime Minister’s questions, I asked when West Lancashire constituents could expect the Government to introduce plans for a new deal on flood insurance—they had already missed the self-imposed July deadline. The Deputy Prime Minister replied:
	“We are devoting a lot of attention to it, and I hope we will be able to make an announcement in the not-too-distant future.”—[Official Report, 7 November 2012; Vol. 552, c. 859.]
	Four months have passed, yet there is no deal and no sign of one.

Diana Johnson: As I understand it, we will need primary legislation to introduce the new scheme. It is very late in the day—it is already nearly April—and I wonder whether the scheme will be ready in July and whether something will be in place this summer to replace the statement of principles.

Rosie Cooper: I hope the Minister can give us reassurances on that towards the end of the debate.
	As 30 June fast approaches, the people of West Lancashire are less and less assured of the Government’s ability to protect their homes and businesses. From the insurance companies’ point of view, it is not surprising that a deal is yet to be reached. They are faced with an increasing incidence of extreme weather conditions, a greater frequency of flooding, and more homes and businesses being hit. Residents are looking to a future of potentially massively increased insurance premiums that many will be unable to afford, assuming they can get insurance policy cover in the first place. In any case, they will be left at the mercy of mother nature, waiting in fear of the next time devastation is wrought on their home.
	Securing what will be a short-term deal on flood insurance is not a solution to all our problems. Fixing the insurance problem is inextricably linked to fixing the underlying flooding issue. For that to happen, we need to have a change in culture in tackling flooding issues.
	At the local level, the flooding response co-ordination is shambolic. There is no single agency responsible for actually tackling flooding when it hits. There is no
	leadership. In my area, Lancashire county council does not even attend meetings when it is asked to attend, abdicating all responsibility for what is going on. When West Lancashire was hit by flooding on several occasions at the end of last year, I met people who had been forced out of their homes. They were angry and upset. Who do they call when the watercourse is overflowing on to the land, and the water is running off the land through their back garden and down on to the highway where the drains cannot cope with the volume? Many were passed from pillar to post, with the message from different agencies as they asked for help as the flood water headed towards their homes, “We can’t do anything until your home is flooded.” That is the very point at which it was too late to save their homes or give them meaningful help. Local farmers were forced to stand by and watch as the flood waters destroyed millions of pounds of food crops. They were ready, willing and able to take the necessary action to clear the ditches and watercourses to protect their land and to protect the crops, but inadequate land management because of budget cuts, a lack of communication and the need to undertake an environmental impact assessment before they could act all but tied their hands.
	Across West Lancashire and Sefton, agriculture and horticulture provide employment for more than 2,500 people and generate more than £230 million in gross value added to the regional economy. We cannot afford for flooding not to be addressed. We cannot afford the prices of food in the shops going up because it has been destroyed in the fields.
	We need to be more proactive than reactive. The people of West Lancashire do not want to hear from Ministers about the past. The people need to know that there is a real partnership and that money will not be taken from the Environment Agency’s coffers—from one budget to another—leaving depleted budgets. This is happening on Ministers’ watch, and they have responsibility. They have their ministerial jobs, and now homeowners and business owners are looking to them, calling on them to act and to act now.

Nicola Blackwood: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab) on securing this timely and important debate. I have 1,627 homes and businesses in my constituency that are at significant risk of flooding. I have visited streets in Abingdon, Kidlington and Oxford where ripped-out carpets, kitchen units and discarded furniture were all piled up and abandoned on pavements in 2007, and that sight is branded on my memory. I guarantee that not a single one of those home owners has forgotten that summer, and since then we have had any number of flood warnings that serve, like tremors after an earthquake, to reawaken the anxiety of that week of flooding and the reconstruction that followed. It cost the county £3 million and the country £3 billion.
	For those who live at flood risk, there is no respite. Instead, they live in a constant state of uncertainty, never knowing what our delightful British climate will bring. Uncertainty driven by weather is one thing, but uncertainty that is driven by our response to flood risk is another. Other than by inventing a weather machine we are not going to eliminate flood risk, but we have
	three, interdependent levers to mitigate flood risk and limit the stress that it brings. Those are flood insurance, flood defences and individual property and community resilience.
	Whether people are rampant climate sceptics or paid-up members of the Green party, most studies show clearly that changing weather patterns mean that flooding is on the increase, while population increases and poor planning have exacerbated the problem dramatically. We will to have to get better at using those levers to mitigate that risk. In particular, overloaded infrastructure, such as drainage capacity, is leaving increasing numbers of constituents at the mercy of not only notoriously hard-to- respond-to surface water, but revolting episodes of effluent flooding. I am aghast that in this day and age I have constituents who have to cope with sewage coming into their homes simply because it is raining. We are supposed to be living in a highly developed country. The worst thing is that the insurance situation means that they feel gagged because they do not want to put their local property market at risk.

Nick Gibb: My hon. Friend’s description of seeing homes in her constituency flooded reminds me of the problems I saw in Bognor Regis and Littlehampton on 10 and 11 in June, when more than 300 homes were flooded. Does she share my view that in addition to the flood insurance issue, we need to spend sufficient capital to ensure that the surface drainage system is sufficient to mitigate such problems when heavy rainfall occurs?

Nicola Blackwood: I agree that infrastructure is vital. I believe deeply that many of the problems we face today stem from an inherited legacy of bad planning.

Andrew Smith: rose—

Nicola Blackwood: My right hon. Friend—ish—the right hon. Member for Oxford East (Mr Smith) knows how difficult it can be to get accountability and solutions for constituents when responsibility falls between the Environment Agency, local authorities and Thames Water, and he might want to comment on that point.

Andrew Smith: I am grateful to my hon. Friend-ish for giving way. [Laughter.] Flood waters are no respecters of constituency boundaries and we work closely on these issues. On planning, does the hon. Lady agree that, given that successive Governments and councils of all complexions have allowed so much development on the flood plain, it is perfectly proper for the state to pick up some of the responsibility by participating in insurance schemes, such as “Flood Re”, which are the only way to protect our constituents from unaffordable premiums?

Nicola Blackwood: Clearly, it is vital that flood insurance continues to be widely available and affordable, a point I will come to in a moment. Although there is frustration about the responsibility of different agencies working together to respond to constituents, the emergency response to flood events locally since 2007 has improved dramatically, and there have been positive developments on flood defences in Kidlington and Oxford.
	However, none of that addresses the long-term strategic challenges we face, and insurance has to be at the top of that list. That is why, with all the other urgent flooding priorities that we have heard about, we have to focus on the 30 June deadline. That date dominates the lives of far too many of my constituents. They fear that they will suddenly become uninsurable, breach their mortgage conditions and have unsellable properties. While I appreciate that negotiations with the Association of British Insurers have been complex and that there is no easy solution, especially with the current fiscal situation, it is not as if we did not see this coming—it has been coming since the statement of principles was agreed in 2002.
	If we are not going to hit the deadline, we need to be clear and transparent with constituents about what will happen between then and any future deal. Until now, the line has been to not undermine negotiations by giving a running commentary on them. That is not unreasonable and had an agreement been reached in time, I think that all would have been forgiven, but people need to know now how to protect themselves. Ministers have been clear about their priorities, which are to ensure that flood insurance remains widely available, affordable and fiscally sustainable. Nobody is going to argue with any of those principles, but they will not help householders to work out how to plan for their financial future.
	I therefore ask the Minister the following questions. On the stroke of midnight on 30 June, will we have a free market or will we have some kind of interim extension of the statement of principles? If it is the latter, have there been any discussions about what form it will take? If the Government are going to let the free market emerge in the interim, will Ministers let it be genuinely uncontrolled, with all the pricing risks that holds, or are they considering regulation? If so, what kind of regulation, and how and when? On “Flood Re”, the current cross-subsidy is £8. Yesterday the ABI told me that the proposed levy would also come to £8, but it would have to be formalised as a tax. However, the National Flood Forum brief estimates the levy at £13. What assessment have the Government made of the levy and what mechanism would they need to regulate it? Finally, what measures are being considered to incentivise flood defence investment on a personal, local and national level? That is the only responsible way to manage flood risk on an ongoing basis.
	I accept that it takes two to tango. I met the ABI yesterday and I made those points, but I am afraid that today it is the Minister’s turn. My constituents deserve to know whether their homes will be insured in July and on what terms. They deserve at least that measure of certainty, even though they live in a flood-risk zone.

Diana Johnson: In 2007 my constituency in Hull was badly flooded. Ninety-five per cent of the city is below sea level, so we have always been prone to flooding, but in 2007 we had surface water flooding, a phenomenon that is now becoming more widespread around the country.
	Since 2007, I have on several occasions raised in the House the question of what will happen with flood insurance come the end of June. Last summer, when I asked the then Secretary of State for Environment,
	Food and Rural Affairs what was happening, I was told on the Floor of the House that an agreement was close, that it would be a much better deal, that premiums would be affordable and that there would be no unaffordable excesses either, so I was quite optimistic. That was last summer. Since then I have written to the new Secretary of State and asked him what is happening. I have to say that it is completely unacceptable that the Government have dragged their feet on this issue, which is so important to so many householders up and down the country.
	I have a great deal of respect for the Minister on the Front Bench, the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon). I know he works hard to ensure that flooding is on the Government’s agenda. My understanding is that the Treasury is now stopping any agreement being reached. I understand that the Treasury has to look carefully at whatever public money has to be set aside or underwritten for any scheme, but time is running out. This is about people’s lives. People in Hull who were flooded in 2007 feel upset that they could be left high and dry come this summer. They have found it difficult to get flood insurance over the last few years. Premiums have gone up considerably and excesses are now very high. I say to the Minister that action needs to be taken.
	I was disappointed that there was nothing in the Budget last week to deal with this issue. There were measures to deal with house building and sort out the housing situation, but if the Minister cannot ensure that householders up and down this country can have flood insurance, that will be a considerable blight on the housing market. People will not be able to get mortgages or sell their homes. I feel strongly that the Minister now needs to express to the highest echelons of the Government the view that this has to be a priority. We are now just three months off the statement of principles ending. I do not want to have to tell my constituents that insurance will no longer be available in the city of Hull, so I ask the Government to get on and sort this out, please.

Robert Smith: I congratulate the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab) on bringing this motion before the House so that we can focus on the urgency of the situation before us, as we contemplate the ending of the statement of principles and the need to find a new way forward for flood insurance.
	I cannot think of many things worse than coming home and finding one’s house inundated with water or being there when it happens. As hon. Members know who have experienced this issue from their constituents’ point of view, it is not just water; it is mud and sewage. It is devastating to have that in the house. However, one thing that is worse is for that to happen three years after the last time, as was the case in Stonehaven in my constituency. The safety net of insurance is one of the long-term securities to which people look to recover from the situation. Obviously we thank the emergency services for all they did and could do on the night to rescue people and mitigate the situation. Indeed, I want to place on record the resilience of the local community in Stonehaven, which rallied round. It was the weekend before Christmas and people were turning up with
	replacement food for Christmas lunches and replacement gifts for those that the children had lost in the floods. In that sense, it was great to see the community spirit, but the insurance response is the issue of long-term importance.
	As hon. Members have mentioned, the issue is going to be of wider interest, as the traditional flood areas are going to grow and the randomness of flooding events is going to increase with climate change, the warming of the atmosphere and its ability to hold more moisture, making more rain-intensive events. It is thus in our collective interest to come up with a solution that deals with flooding, as it is going to be a wider risk, which needs to be shared. Planning and flood defences, which are devolved in Scotland, and individual property protection all make a difference and will help to reduce the risk in the long term. It is impressive to see how individual property flood protection can limit the damage on the night.

Naomi Long: Before entering politics, I spent a lot of time designing sewerage and drainage systems. One thing that needs to be looked at for long-term protection is the design standards that are used. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we could collaborate with the civil engineering sector and look to how we could design our standards differently in order to respond to the changes in rainfall patterns that we are seeing?

Robert Smith: It is important for the standards to reflect the reality of what is to come in the future rather than to cope with what was learned in the past. The hon. Lady makes a very important point. The maintenance and clearing of the drains is also important so that they can take the surge when it comes. We need to be able to deal with the debris that goes through the system and causes blockages, which often mean that the design specifications have not been met effectively.
	Let me reinforce the point that insurance is a collective risk. As insurance companies have become more sophisticated with their computers and marketing, the risk base on which individual premiums are based becomes narrower and narrower. Coming up with the solution where we all as a society bear some of the risk of flooding because we do not know where it will strike next seems to provide an important way forward. June 2013 is not far away, so I hope the Minister will go away from this debate recognising the urgency of the situation: we must provide a solution and people must know how and when it is going to be taken forward. As has been said, if people want to continue to mortgage their houses, they must have insurance, and if new people are to move into a house, they need to able to insure it and to avoid any blight on the property.

Nick Gibb: Is my hon. Friend beginning to receive, as I am, some letters from constituents who are already encountering difficulties in renewing their building insurance and particularly the flooding element of it?

Robert Smith: Yes, and the much higher excesses are difficult for a lot of people to carry or cover. This is a problem for businesses as well as for domestic properties.

Craig Whittaker: Last summer, some of my Calder Valley constituents were flooded three times over the course of a month, and they experienced exactly the same problem—that under the statement of priorities they are still struggling to get
	affordable insurance and sometimes to get any insurance at all. Does my hon. Friend agree that, in that case, the 30 June deadline is perhaps not the highest priority? The highest priority should be getting the right deal for constituents so that they can go forward into the future.

Robert Smith: Both are important. The right deal for those not getting a good enough service out of the statement of principles is extremely important, as is knowing what it is going to happen after the deadline. That is important for everyone affected, as they are going to have to renew their insurance and will have to find an affordable way of doing that. I commend the motion as a way of keeping up the pressure and highlighting our constituents’ perspective that there has to be a serious solution to this problem.

Ian Lavery: I congratulate the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab) on initiating this timely debate on the Floor of the House. By way of background, I remind Members that on 5 and 6 September 2008 Morpeth—a market town in my constituency—found itself at the centre of the most intensive rainfall in living memory. Some 950 properties in the town, including dozens of businesses, were directly affected. Surrounding villages were hit very hard, too, including Hepscott, which was affected by flash flooding. A number of other properties were badly flooded. The devastation suffered by individuals, families, businesses and the community at large cannot be overstated in any way, shape or form. It was an experience that will haunt their memories for many years.
	As we debate the issue today, I am delighted that progress is finally being made in Morpeth. I thank and congratulate Northumberland county council, which has allocated £12 million towards the cost of new flood defences. That money is being delivered with the support and agreement of the three main political parties. It is important to recognise the role that the emergency services have played across the UK, but particularly in Morpeth in my constituency, and the way that they operated to help others during those difficult times. The local community in my constituency, the Morpeth Flood Action Group and many others pulled together, as has happened in the constituencies of many other hon. Members on both sides of the House, in the most difficult of circumstances. It would be remiss of me not to mention the Environment Agency and Ian Hodge, who works at the agency in Newcastle, who has played a huge role in Morpeth.
	The problem has been described as immense, but the pooling system—an important component of insurance—will be an integral part of any agreement and, I hope, positive resolution that is reached. The pooling system has been proposed under the “Flood Re” model and the Morpeth model. That system formalises the existing cross-subsidy. It redistributes the risk to keep affordability in place for high-risk properties. It represents the only fair way forward in a changing situation where climate change is giving rise to an increasing number of extreme weather events. The ABI model, the “Flood Re” system and the Morpeth system combine availability with affordability. The “Flood Mu”, or Noah model, does not guarantee that because it does not put a cap on flood premiums.

Damian Collins: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is important that the insurance industry take into account investment in new flood defence schemes, including the one that he has talked about and the new sea wall at Dymchurch in my constituency? Often insurers base their quotes on generic information that does not take into account investment in new defences.

Ian Lavery: That is a powerful comment, with which I totally agree.
	As has been discussed, the ABI has been in discussion with the Government for several months, perhaps years, on the ending of the statement of principles in June 2013. The clock is ticking. The deadline is fast approaching. People want answers. People in Morpeth have been flooded time and again; hon. Members on both sides of the House have described the experiences of people in their constituencies who have suffered greatly time and again. They cannot get affordable insurance. The excesses are higher than what the properties are worth, so it is meaningless.
	Time and again, Members on both sides of the House have mentioned the importance of ensuring that we have a statement that will ensure something affordable and accessible is in place when the statement of principles runs out. We have been told time and again that the discussions with the ABI are at a critical point, that the statement is nearly ready and that things are in place. However, The Times this morning said something completely different. It suggested that there are huge difficulties between the ABI and the Government. Perhaps the Minister, for whom I have a lot of time and who has been very helpful, can explain from the Dispatch Box this afternoon where we are with the ABI and what is likely to happen in the next three months. It is absolutely imperative that we get something in place for the people who have been suffering for some time.
	I am sure that the Minister will have much more to say, and it is important that we deal with this issue and that measures are put in place. I hope that we will not hear, “We are still in discussions and we cannot really give any more details, because the matter is confidential and that wouldn’t be right.” We want an answer today for everyone who lives in a property on a flood plain. We do not want to hear, “Something will happen.” Give us the answers, so we can tell our constituents what the situation is and they can feel safe.

Julian Sturdy: I am grateful for the opportunity to make a short contribution to this very important debate on flood insurance, which I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab) on securing.
	As the Member of Parliament for a constituency that contains two major river courses and surrounds one of the most historic, flood-hit cities in the country, I naturally have constituents who express a great deal of concern about flooding, its impact on the local community and on the availability and affordability of flood insurance. Flood insurance is an issue not only for those who have sadly been flooded, but for those who have not and may never be but are deemed to be in a flood-risk area.

John Glen: My constituent Sarah McKerlie told me just a few days ago that the sale of her property has fallen through three times because of the ambiguous risk. The current uncertainty is leading to irrational behaviour that does not necessarily relate to insurability. This uncertainty needs to end, so that people can sell their properties. It is a real blight and is causing major distress to many people.

Julian Sturdy: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. I have a number of constituents in the same boat who bring the same concerns to me.
	Given that the statement of principles comes to an end in June, the future looks very uncertain for many of my constituents and those of Members throughout the House, so I welcome the motion today. I want to focus on a village in my constituency situated to the south of York, on the banks of the River Ouse. Large parts of Naburn are at a significant risk of flooding. Late last year, I was contacted by a Naburn resident who informed me that, over the past 37 years, his property has been badly flooded on four separate occasions. In the six months since last autumn’s terrible wet weather, some homes in Naburn have been flooded numerous times. Thankfully, the people of Naburn have a strong sense of community spirit. They are Yorkshire folk, after all, and they are starting to pull together to do all they can to reduce their collective flood risk.
	Following a public meeting in the village in November, the parish council and a group of interested residents set up a working group to investigate inexpensive and cost-effective measures that they can swiftly enact to help them deal with flooding before it affects their properties.

Nicola Blackwood: I suspect that my hon. Friend is about to describe a flood group like the Oxford Flood Alliance, which he and I are familiar with. It plays a huge role in reducing flood risk in Oxford by coming up with flood plans, mitigating flood risk in communities and developing flood resilience. Does he agree that this is a really important thing to encourage, and that any future flood insurance scheme must encourage such developments?

Julian Sturdy: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. Local flood groups are very important for our communities. I am sure that, like my community flood group, my hon. Friend’s is working hard with the Environment Agency, the local authority and the local water and drainage boards to improve flood resistance capabilities.
	Some ideas that have been considered include allowing local residents to have control over mobile pumping units and sandbag storage and delivery and to use their local knowledge to protect the most vulnerable people. We must not forget that there are some severely vulnerable people in flood-risk areas, and we must make sure that they do not become isolated by flooding. Independently, many people are considering making flood resilience improvements to their own homes.
	The hard work, positive action and sense of resolve that I have witnessed in Naburn is extraordinary, and the community should be commended for its collective approach to the problems that it faces. I am well aware that, as has been pointed out, there are similar stories
	across the country of communities coming together to battle the difficulties of flooding, and they should all be commended.

Andrew Smith: I, too, praise the Oxford Flood Alliance. Insurance is one aspect being pursued there. The alliance has found that just because one person in one property gets a quote from an insurance company their neighbour may not be able to get anything like a similar quote from the same company, because the companies limit their exposure in these areas. That is driving up premiums and giving people intolerable uncertainty.

Julian Sturdy: I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman, and I have been told of similar circumstances in relation to the accessibility of local flood insurance.
	What my constituents fear, as I do, is that their efforts, which I have just explained, could all be in vain if the statement of principles ends without a new agreement in place. Home insurance premiums would sky-rocket for all residents in communities such as Naburn, regardless of whether or not a property is susceptible to flooding. Some people would lose flood insurance altogether, and, as has been said, mortgage agreements could be at risk as a result. I understand the need for negotiations between the Government and the ABI to be private and confidential, but the lack of any specific details emerging from the negotiations is fuelling my constituents’ concerns about how they will cope in the future.
	My constituents are prepared to come together to work as a community to face up to the flooding threat on their doorstep. They therefore need the same commitment from the Government and the insurance industry to do all that they can to protect people from the worst excesses of flooding and deliver an agreement that improves the availability and affordability of flooding insurance where flood resilience measures fail. It is time for action.

Sheryll Murray: First, I ask the House to join me in offering our heartfelt condolences to the family of Susan Norman, who suffered a tragic fatal accident during a landslip caused by heavy rainfall in Looe in my constituency on Friday. May I pay a special tribute to all the people from the emergency services who attended the scene and worked tirelessly throughout the day? I also wish to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab) for securing today’s important debate.
	My constituency has been one of the places worst hit by flooding over the past couple of years. The BBC acknowledged that places such as Looe, Polperro and my own village of Millbrook were some of the worst affected in Britain by flooding in November and December 2012. The heavy rainfall resulted in a lot of damage to highways, infrastructure and homes across my constituency. Cornwall council has estimated the cost of repairing the damage across Cornwall to be about £2.5 million.
	I would like to take this opportunity to thank the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon) for visiting my constituency to see for himself the devastating effects of the floods. It meant a
	lot to my constituents and it also meant that he was also able to see for himself the damage and destruction caused by surface water run-off in both east and west Looe.
	The most recent fatal landslip occurred just yards away from one that took place last December. So will the Minister join me in calling for the immediate publication of all road surveys and reports that have been undertaken over the past four years on the roads in the town of Looe and in the wider area of Cornwall? That would allow insurance companies and residents to be reassured, given the obvious and understandable concern that there is at the moment.
	The House should be aware that the residents raised the possibility of the landslip that took place last week when they wrote to the council on 15 January. They asked:
	“Is there a risk of subsidence or landslide on to the back of or even engulfing our properties?”
	They also asked whether they and their homes would be safe. The council’s response was:
	“The site has been inspected on a number of occasions and all areas giving rise to concern are included within the current works programme.”
	That work programme was due to be completed and the road to be reopened at the end of this week.
	The residents wrote again and presented a 60-page dossier to the chief executive of the council in February; they are waiting for a reply. I last wrote to the local councillor for an update in February, but again I am still waiting for a reply. A Looe town councillor, Councillor Brian Galipeau, formally proposed that the town council should take on the job of securing reassurance about the stability of Hannafore road and lane and sought a contingency plan in case of road failure to reassure the residents, and I am disappointed that the request has been met with what I understand to be accusations of scaremongering.
	I am sure the Minister will agree that securing reassurance about road stability deserves to be treated in a responsible manner, because it can affect the availability of insurance for those residents. I hope that he will join me in calling for the immediate funding he announced yesterday to be used for physical flood prevention measures and not to employ yet another council officer.
	Let me finish by highlighting the situation for two of my constituents. The first was being charged £200 to £300 for her flood insurance last year. Her home was flooded and in January, she was informed that it would cost £530 to renew her policy. The huge increase in her costs caused her to look elsewhere, but the majority of companies refuse to take her on at the moment. Another constituent has had major issues obtaining insurance since her property was flooded. She was informed by her insurance company that it needed a report from the Environment Agency, which has not given the necessary guarantees. I hope we will get some answers from the Minister today.

Stephen Gilbert: I join my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall (Sheryll Murray) in expressing condolences to the family and friends of her constituent, who was so tragically killed. It shows the importance of this debate and the
	need, as all Members have said, for the Government to get on with the job and provide a solution for what will happen at the end of the statement of principles.
	There has been tremendous unanimity across the Chamber. I agreed with every word of what the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Nicola Blackwood) said and with most of what the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) said, although perhaps not the tone in which she said it. I recognise that the Government have worked hard behind the scenes with the Association of British Insurers to reach a solution, but the clock is ticking.
	It gives me no pleasure to be standing in the Chamber talking about flooding again, as I think that this is the fourth or fifth time that I have raised the issue in the House. The key point is the continued availability and affordability of insurance. A second issue, which I shall touch on briefly, is the operation of the Bellwin scheme—that is, shall we say, the insurance policy for local authorities that are hit by the cost of cleaning up floods. Before I do that, I want to join hon. Members from all parties who have paid tribute to the volunteers in their constituencies who are helping to build community resilience. Whether they are in Mevagissey, St Austell, Pentewan or Polmassick—or, perhaps most notably, in St Blazey—I see a huge amount of voluntary work in my constituency, with people coming forward and developing strategies and contingency plans.
	As we all know, flooding can be devastating, even when there is no loss of life. It can have a devastating impact on businesses and individuals as possessions and memories are washed away. In the clear-up, people need to know that insurance companies will pay out in a timely way and that they will be able to get insurance again for the future. Sadly, there remains a considerable danger that this simple aspiration for business and home owners will not be guaranteed and that affordable flood insurance will become unavailable in our country.
	The scale of the challenge is getting worse, not better: one in every six homes are at risk of flooding; 2.4 million properties are at risk from the sea and rivers; 2.8 million homes are at risk from surface flooding; and 5 million people live or work in flood-risk areas. As my hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir Robert Smith) said, with the extent and nature of the threat we face changing, surely our response as a society should change, too. We are in an era of climate change and we all face unpredictable flooding risks and the potential for great costs. Therefore, I encourage the Government to recognise that this is not a problem that can be contained to specific areas; it is a national problem that requires a national response.
	As my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall made clear, Cornwall has suffered hugely with the costs of repairing flood damage over recent years. The latest estimate I have from Cornwall council is that the cost in November and December for last year’s floods alone is £7.4 million in revenue and capital expenditure. The Government have rightly activated the Bellwin scheme, the insurance policy for local authorities hit by flooding.

Sheryll Murray: Does my hon. Friend agree that under the Bellwin scheme’s rules the fact that Cornwall was changed to a unitary authority from six districts and one county council has disadvantaged Cornwall considerably?

Stephen Gilbert: My hon. Friend pre-empts the point I was about to make, and which I have made before. We need to review the Bellwin scheme in order to take account of different types of local authority structure, whether single-tier, such as Cornwall’s unitary council, which I believe gives Cornwall a stronger voice overall, or two-tier, such as Devon, with its district council and county council, which has a lower threshold for activating Government support. In Cornwall’s case, the threshold is £1.4 million of expenditure, which needs to be defrayed before the Bellwin scheme provides any central Government support. If that threshold is not met, the whole bill must be picked up by the local authority. Even if it is met, the local authority will still have to pick up 15% of the additional total.
	There are very strange rules relating to different types of expenditure. Although the immediate response to incidents—the £181,000 for the fire and rescue service and the cost of advice to residents and of housing support, for example—might fall within the Bellwin scheme if the threshold is crossed, the repairs to highways and other capital expenditure to put right what the flood damage put wrong are not covered. I say to the Minister that as well as ensuring that flood insurance for homes and businesses remains affordable and available, and recognising that we are all in it together, local authorities need to know that the Government stand behind them, too. With climate change happening, it is clear that flooding will continue, but we must not leave people, businesses and councils hung out to dry when the waters recede.

Jonathan Evans: I begin by drawing attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and to my chairmanship of the all-party group on insurance and financial services. It is in that context that I think it is helpful to share with the House some of the observations that have been made by the insurance press about the discussions with the Government over recent years, which Post magazine has described as “negotiations to nowhere”.
	It is astounding that it was in 2008 that the insurance industry made it clear that it would be withdrawing from the statement of principles. May I make it absolutely clear that it is important that it should do so, because many of the individual cases that Members have drawn attention to here are not covered by the statement of principles? They are not in this jeopardy because of the expiry of the statement of principles; the statement of principles does not have an “all circumstances” provision. That is why it is necessary to address the matter.
	In 2008 I was in the European Parliament, and I was surprised to see that no progress had been made by the time I came here in 2010. I am astounded, frankly, that here we are in 2013, barely weeks away, and still there is no progress to announce. It is not as though we have not dealt with these issues before. The insurer of last resort is, in fact, the Government. They took on that role in relation to “Pool Re”, when we needed to create terrorism insurance, and it was done in a matter of weeks. The Lloyds-Equitas debacle, which I had ministerial responsibility for resolving, was resolved within 12 months. Following 9/11, no insurance was available to the aviation industry in this country, and
	that matter was resolved by Government within a matter of days. Yet here we are, years and years later, with no progress to announce.
	I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab) for securing this debate and for his speech. He has called for good faith on the part of the insurance industry and for a Government contribution. That has also been said by other Members and in The Times leader to which reference has been made.
	On good faith in the insurance industry, the all-party group on insurance and financial services has held three meetings since the election specifically on these issues. People have attended from the Association of British Insurers, on every occasion, from the British Insurance Brokers Association, on every occasion, and from the National Flood Forum. People from Aon, from Guy Carpenter and from Marsh have outlined the range of proposals that they have been making to Government. In an all-party group meeting on 12 October, Aon raised for the first time a variation on the “Flood Re” proposal, but we do not know what the Government’s response has been. In November, there was a bit of a spat when the ABI thought that the Government were not going to make any contribution. In response, it was claimed that it was nonsense to say that there was an impasse. Yet here we are, approaching the Easter break, and we still seem to have an impasse.
	I do not blame the Minister. He attended a flood summit back in 2010, and he absolutely understands all the issues. However, I wonder to what extent his hands are tied elsewhere, perhaps not so much by the change in Secretary of State but by the involvement of the Cabinet Office in some aspects of these discussions. It is said that the Government may have been spooked by the original discussions, which had been going constructively, when they looked at the overall cost of flooding. However, that is not good enough. We have heard it suggested that there could be an extension of the statement of principles, but that is a voluntary agreement with the industry, and it is not going to happen; we can rule it out. The reality is that we will either see a return to the free market or the Government will have to get their act together, and soon.

Penny Mordaunt: I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab) on securing this debate. I am grateful for the chance to speak, because many of my constituents, especially in Paulsgrove, Cosham, Drayton and Farlington, have been affected by these issues.
	We have good sea defences in Portsmouth, but we have a very dilapidated sewerage and drainage system that has caused many of the problems on and around the Portsdown Hill area. A programme of works is now in place to rectify those problems, and so far we have been able to protect local people from the increases in their insurance premiums as they have had to submit repeated claims for repeated flooding and sewerage leaks.
	I agree with many of the points that have been made, and I will not go over them again. I wish to touch on two additional issues that add insult to injury. The first of these is planning. Planning applications are approved even when the new build is on a serious flood plain.
	An applicant for a dementia care home in my constituency attempted to placate the planning committee by saying—I kid you not—that because the building was high-rise, if there were a flood the residents would be able to get to high ground. The application was approved. The advice of local planning committees and the Environment Agency is often ignored, or their decisions overturned.
	I hope that there could be an incentive for a slightly more responsible stance on these issues. There is a gap in the market for an “Environment Agency Says No” website, so that whether it is a house or a care home place being purchased, the consumer would be able to check whether the agency has given the site and the development the thumbs up.

Nicola Blackwood: My hon. Friend is making some excellent points about Environment Agency approval of flood plains. She began by talking about dilapidated sewerage systems. Does she agree that we need to include Thames Water more in decisions about planning, because a lot of our drainage systems are causing problems with surface water flooding?

Penny Mordaunt: My hon. Friend is right. The Environment Agency has told me that it would like to be more involved with such planning decisions and there are many other organisations that we should take advice from.
	The transparency that I have described would not deal with current cases, but it would head off future grief by providing an incentive for developers to behave more responsibly.
	The final issue that I will touch on is compensation for deliberate flooding. There have been cases in my county, although not in my constituency, of landowners having their land flooded deliberately by the local authority to prevent greater damage elsewhere. That is quite understandable, but in such cases the landowner should be able to access some form of compensation. I would be grateful for the Minister’s views on that.
	Finally, I congratulate the Backbench Business Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton and all Members who have made possible this timely debate on an important issue.

Neil Parish: It is a great pleasure to speak in this debate. I, too, thank my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab) for securing it and the Backbench Business Committee for holding it.
	Flooding has been a particular problem in the past year throughout my constituency. Tiverton, Cullompton, Seaton, Axminster and Uplyme have all been affected by flooding and Feniton has been flooded several times. We need to ensure that my constituents and people across the country can get flood insurance that they can afford.
	I have a great deal of respect for my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff North (Jonathan Evans), but he speaks, naturally enough, on behalf of the insurance industry. It is a wonderful industry, but it is not terribly charitable. It is there to make a profit. There is nothing
	wrong with profit, but we must not set up a system that puts a levy on all insurance payers in order to pay for those in flood-risk areas.

Jonathan Evans: I do not want my hon. Friend to miss the fact that the “Flood Re” scheme, about which everybody has spoken, is a not-for-profit scheme. It is important that everybody recognises that.

Neil Parish: I thank my hon. Friend for correcting me about that being a not-for-profit scheme, but that was not the point I was making.
	My point is that when we levy all insurance payers to build up a fund that takes the risk of properties in high-risk areas away from the insurance companies, we should not be too generous because insurance companies are all about taking risk. That is what they are in business for. They should therefore be able to take their fair share of risk. I want to ensure that the insurance companies step up to the plate, but also that the Government help those who, in their areas, cannot get flood insurance under a private scheme on the free market. That is the balance that must be struck.

Andrew Smith: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there is a precedent for the Government’s participating in the way that we are all advocating in the “Pool Re” arrangements that provide terrorism insurance cover?

Neil Parish: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the Government can step up to the plate and be the insurer of last resort. However, the point I am making is that the Government must be the insurer of last resort, not the insurer of first resort.
	Because there has been so much flooding in the past year, the insurance companies have naturally been putting the maximum possible pressure on the Government. They are in business, so it is right for them to do so. However, given that everybody who pays insurance across the piece will pay for the scheme, the Government must ensure that everybody is dealt with fairly.
	It is essential that people who genuinely cannot get insurance—those who have been flooded two or three times, such as my constituents in Feniton—can get insurance in the future. The current statement of principles does not cover them. I am therefore looking forward to the Government putting in place a much better system so that people can access insurance irrespective of whether they have been flooded several times. It is not their fault that they live in a property that is flooding; in many respects, it is planning decisions that generate floods.
	In the village of Feniton, there have been appeal decisions allowing more houses to be built where the appeal inspector has actually recognised in his brief that the village will flood and might flood further as a result of the development, but has allowed the houses anyway because the district council has not got its five-year housing plan up to speed. That means that the poor people down the bottom of Feniton will get flooded even more. What is the logic of that? This must be not only about flood insurance but about a planning policy that says we do not build on flood plains or on hills above villages so that the water runs off and floods the people at the bottom end of the village even more.
	This is something I get quite excited about, because the people who get flooded should not have to put up with it.
	Other hon. Members have talked about ensuring that the money for the Bellwin scheme is available when, for example, roads are washed away by floods. Very often, the Government claim that Bellwin is available to local authorities, but when the latter claim it, the Government and the bureaucracy decide that many of the proposed schemes to cover flood damage are not eligible. That has to be dealt with.

Sheryll Murray: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Bellwin scheme is only for immediate and emergency repairs, which it is often not possible for local authorities to carry out?

Neil Parish: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. If a road or bridge is washed away, the local authority might not be able to put it right immediately, but it will still have an effect on local people and local authority spend.
	I am keen for the Government to negotiate a system that gives people access to affordable flood insurance in high-risk areas; otherwise, we will end up putting a levy on all insurance payers, only to find that people cannot get genuinely affordable insurance. That is key. I will want to see in the proposal what the word “affordable” means, because what is affordable to one person is not affordable to another. I do not want the insurance companies gobbling up a great deal of money and then not offering affordable assurance to my constituents in villages and towns that have been flooded.

Gavin Shuker: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for calling me to speak in this important debate. It has been a good debate, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab) on securing it and the Backbench Business Committee on giving it the importance it deserves.
	We have heard several fantastic speeches and many comments that were true for Members on both sides of the House. My hon. Friend the hon. Member for West Lancashire (Rosie Cooper) made a strong argument about the link between flood defences and flood insurance, while the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Nicola Blackwood) raised concerns on behalf of the 1,627 of her constituents who will be particularly affected if flood insurance is not available. To her point about drainage, I would add that there are six provisions in the Flood and Water Management Act 2010 that have not yet been enacted and which I invite the Government to implement.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson), who is a dogged campaigner for her constituents, has made endless attempts to establish the true state of the negotiations and made a powerful argument, while the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir Robert Smith) talked about the devastating effects of flooding in his community and made a strong point about how the increasing unpredictability of recent flood events are causing us to ask fundamental questions about the nature of risk.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery) made a powerful speech about his constituency and his constituents in Morpeth, where nearly 1,000 properties were devastated in those terrible scenes. The hon. Member for York Outer (Julian Sturdy) mentioned the village of Leyburn and the problems faced by residents there. He rightly asked a question that I will go on to ask: would it not be terrible if those constituents came together to manage their flood risk but were let down by the Government and the insurance industry in getting a deal?
	Hon. Members across the House will, I am sure, agree with comments made by the hon. Member for South East Cornwall (Sheryll Murray) about the tragic event in Looe last week, and our condolences go out to the families of those concerned. There are other issues elsewhere in Cornwall, and the hon. Member for St Austell and Newquay (Stephen Gilbert) spoke about the inevitable unwinding of the cross-subsidy in the system, should we move to a free market position.
	The hon. Member for Cardiff North (Jonathan Evans) made a powerful speech about the lack of urgency and care from this Government, and he put it best when he said that they must get their act together, and soon—a point I will go on to make. The hon. Member for Portsmouth North (Penny Mordaunt) drew on matters relating to planning and deliberate flooding, reminding us that we must view this issue in the round. Finally, the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish)—a constituency that has seen more water than most in the past 12 months—drew on the key issue of affordability and reminded the House that we are discussing a not-for-profit scheme.
	Ninety-six days are all that stand between today’s near-universal coverage for flood damage and an unfettered free market that will leave tens of thousands of people with homes that are uninsurable, unmortgageable and unsellable—96 days, and the clock is ticking.
	I am disappointed that the Minister for Government Policy, the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr Letwin), is unable to be with us today as it is clear that he is leading on negotiations. I am sure that his services as a Government troubleshooter are needed elsewhere, but whatever measure of success the Government apply, so far the process leading to whatever deal we will get has been a failure—a failure of competence, ambition and ideology, and a failure of the Prime Minister.
	Hon. Members might remember the Prime Minister’s comments during the extensive flooding of November last year:
	“I’m sure we will do a deal…We are in negotiations at the moment…We need to take a tough approach frankly and it’s important insurance companies do what they are meant to, which is provide insurance to households and we are going to make sure that happens.”
	Just to make it perfectly clear, he said: “I am personally involved”. That was last year, yet 200,000 high-risk homes could find themselves without insurance in 96 days.
	In government we negotiated a wide-ranging agreement to ensure near universal access to flooding insurance. The limitations to that scheme have been made clear, which is why in 2008 we agreed, alongside the insurance industry, that a successor deal would be needed. This Government, however, have had three years but they have squandered them. They had an insurance industry willing to negotiate to find a solution, and I made it
	clear that the Opposition will take a responsible approach and support any deal to ensure affordable and available insurance. The Government had the resources of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the Cabinet Office, and even of No. 10 Downing street, yet with 96 days to go there is still no deal.
	The consequences of that are stark. Nick Starling from the Association of British Insurers warned that the only alternative to a deal with the Government
	“is a free market, meaning up to 200,000 people will find insurance unavailable or unaffordable.”.
	Ian Crowder of AA Insurance has stated:
	“We are concerned insurance premiums will spiral out of control if no agreement is reached between the ABI and the Government.”,
	and Paul Broadhead of the Building Societies Association warned chillingly:
	“Failure to reach agreement could also have an effect on mortgage lending in high risk areas”.
	The National Flood Forum stated:
	“Government needs to accept its responsibilities of protecting its citizens by making a decision. Failure to make a proposal will put thousands of people at risk”.
	In short, if the Government fail to get a deal, nearly 200,000 households could find themselves without insurance, unable to sell, and with their properties revalued sharply downwards. That could place them in negative equity and create tranches of property blight across the constituencies we represent. In other words, the stakes could not be higher.
	Given those consequences, it is even more worrying that the Government seem unable to admit that they are struggling. In a letter to me of 19 April 2012, the Minister stated:
	“I cannot comment on the timing of any future announcements on this issue but have committed to providing a further update this spring”
	For the sake of clarity, that was spring 2012. No response. In response to my written question of 18 June 2012, the Minister said that the Government were
	“at an advanced stage in intensive negotiations with the industry on alternative arrangements for when the Statement of Principles expires.”—[Official Report, 18 June 2012; Vol. 546, c. 738W.]
	In her written ministerial statement of 11 July 2012, the former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs Spelman), said:
	“Intensive discussions with the insurance industry are continuing and we will announce further details in due course.”—[Official Report, 11 July 2012; Vol. 548, c. 30WS.]
	Last November, Lord De Mauley said in the other place:
	“We are in intense but constructive negotiations with the industry and further announcements will be made in due course”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 1 November 2012; Vol. 740, c. 644.]
	When asked a question by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood) in January, the Minister said:
	“We want to protect those on low incomes in flood-risk areas, and we think we have a method of doing that. We are at an advanced stage in negotiations; I will come to the House shortly, I hope, with details.”—[Official Report, 24 January 2013; Vol. 557, c. 445.]
	Come the next set of DEFRA questions in March, the Minister responded to another question asked by my hon. Friend by saying:
	“Constructive negotiations continue with the insurance industry, at the highest levels of Government, on a range of approaches that could succeed the current statement of principles.”—[Official Report, 7 March 2013; Vol. 1109, c. 559.]
	This situation would be comical if it were not so serious. This is the mañana Department of a mañana Government—always tomorrow and no help for today.
	Even if an agreement could be reached, it would require primary legislation. The Minister should admit what we now know to be true—that this will not be in place for 30 June. The 570,000 properties to which this motion applies and the 570,000 families that could find their homes uninsurable, unmortgageable and unsellable are calling for certainty, but there is none.
	What is the plan? To deny the risk and the social responsibility that any Government bear would deny one of the most basic laws of political gravity, which is that catastrophic risk resides with us all. When catastrophic floods devastate streets, towns and communities, we rightly expect the Government to be there to help us pick up the pieces. That is what is so short-sighted about the Government’s response to getting a deal done on flood insurance.
	As the Minister has previously made clear, there is only one deal on the table. The alternative is a free market that will allow insurers to leave the market for high-risk properties and that will unwind a long-standing settlement that flood insurance should be available as part of every policy.
	Climate change is making flooding more prevalent and less predictable, and the UK climate change risk assessment cites it as the No. 1 threat that we need to adapt to. I have made it clear that the Opposition seek to be helpful and constructive in securing a deal that protects home owners, businesses and communities vulnerable to the risk of flooding. Despite our constructive approach, Ministers have refused to brief this House or involve the Opposition in the discussions. As each week passes, it is becoming harder to defend a situation in which Ministers appear to be drifting without giving any indication of when a deal will be concluded.
	This Government must get a grip. They have 96 days and the clock is ticking.

Richard Benyon: I echo the plaudits given by Members on both sides of the House to my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab) for securing this debate and to the Backbench Business Committee for agreeing to it.
	I say from the start that, yes, the Government are in arduous and urgent negotiations with the insurance industry. We recognise that the Government’s first and primary role is to tackle risk by building flood defences. We are doing that, and I will talk about it later. We must get a good deal for the taxpayer and policyholders and, frankly, a better deal than the statement of principles. Therefore, insurance must be available and affordable, without adding to bills. We are not yet in a position to
	make an announcement that we have a value for money, deliverable solution and one that is legal within the constraints of state aid, but I can assure hon. Members that we are working extremely hard to achieve that.

Nick Gibb: The Minister has been assiduous on this issue, and we are looking forward to seeing him in Pagham in my constituency in late April. Will he be able to make an announcement on this issue before 30 June?

Richard Benyon: I hope that we will be able to do so, and I will give more details on that later. I am looking forward to meeting my hon. Friend’s constituents and to understanding the daily threats that they live with.
	Let us be clear: the availability and affordability of home insurance in flood-risk areas beyond the expiry of the statement of principles on 30 June are vital for hon. Members and the Government, and I firmly support the motion.
	Flooding has a significant and long-lasting impact on local communities, which I have seen first hand in my constituency. The availability of home insurance in flood-risk areas provides important financial protection and peace of mind to such communities. The Government remain committed to ongoing negotiations with the insurance industry and others on what replaces the statement of principles agreement. We want to find a solution that ensures the availability and affordability of flood insurance and will endeavour to continue working with the industry towards that goal.

Naomi Long: rose—

Ian Lavery: rose—

Richard Benyon: I am really short of time, but I will respond to the point that I believe the hon. Gentleman wants to make. If I have time to give way at the end, I will do so.
	As Ministers have repeatedly made clear, the main aim of our work has always been to reach an agreement whereby insurance bills remain affordable, without placing unacceptable and unsustainable costs on wider policyholders. The Government have been doing a lot to support the continued availability of affordable insurance. Reducing flood risk will always be the best and most sustainable solution. Despite difficult times, we are on track to spend more than £2.3 billion to deliver better protection from flooding and coastal erosion to more than 165,000 homes over the four years to 2015. Our new system of partnership funding has brought in an additional £148 million on top of that from external partners. Many hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery), have benefited from that in their constituencies. I give full praise to him and his constituents for the leadership that they have shown.
	The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) asked why there was nothing in the Budget, but £120 million of investment was announced in the autumn statement. Many of those schemes are shovel-ready and proceeding, and they are a great comfort to constituents.
	Despite last year being the second wettest on record, more than 200,000 homes were protected from flooding because of defences already in place. The Environment Agency’s flood warning service provided additional support; evidence is emerging that many houses avoid flooding because of the better flood warning system. We have estimated that, for every property that suffered flooding last year and in January, more than 25 homes were protected because of flood defences and maintenance work and because of the work of the Environment Agency, local authorities and other front-line responders. More than 200,000 householders are therefore benefitting from the Government’s continued investment in managing flood risk.
	Many hon. Members are impatient for information on the Government’s discussions. I am impatient to share the details, but it would be quite wrong to go into too much detail.
	I join my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall (Sheryll Murray) in offering commiserations to her constituent and her family for their loss. I entirely agree with her that all available information must be made publicly available, so that we can get to the bottom of what precisely happened.

Andrew Smith: Will the Minister give way?

Richard Benyon: If I can, I will try to give way in a moment.
	We have recently announced a flood resilience community pathfinder scheme for Cornwall and a number of other parts of the country. In my hon. Friend’s case, £476,000 will be spent in Cornwall.
	The hon. Member for Luton South (Gavin Shuker) said that the statement of principles was universal insurance.

Gavin Shuker: indicated dissent.

Richard Benyon: Perhaps that is not what the hon. Gentleman said. The statement of principles is not universal —not by a long chalk—which is part of the problem. Everything he said in his quote from the Prime Minister is absolutely right, and I thank him for pointing it out.
	When Conservatives were in opposition in 2008, it was agreed that a successor to the statement of principles would be required. The previous Government agreed that a market could emerge after the end of the agreement. The statement of principles says that there will be no need for specific agreements after June 2013. All hon. Members disagree with that and believe that we need a follow-up.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton, to whom I want to give time to make a winding-up speech, asked about the Government’s view of a flood mutual, which is an important question. We are looking very closely at the proposal, which is a possible alternative to “Flood Re”. We are working closely with those who are making that proposal.

Andrew Smith: Will the Minister give way?

Richard Benyon: The right hon. Gentleman will have to be very brief.

Andrew Smith: The Minister said earlier that he was impatient to share information with the House. Can he tell us what the Government’s sticking point—their fundamental problem—is with the “Flood Re” proposal?

Richard Benyon: I will come on to that.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff North (Jonathan Evans) talked about flood insurance in the context of terrorism, but those are entirely different types of insurance. The pool model does work for some of them, but the “Flood Re” model would not work in this case, because it does not provide support for the cost of that cover. He made the point that “Flood Re” is a not-for-profit solution. Well, yes and no, in that the Government would pay through a levy—so householders are paying for it with an element of underwriting—but taking away risk from the most at risk is an advantage to the industry. So we must be very careful. The Minister’s job is to look after the taxpayer and householder. Yes, we need a solution, but not at any price. Whoever was standing at the Dispatch Box, they would not want to bring before the House a deal that was unworkable or that would cause the wrong sort of increases for some of the most at risk and hard up of our constituents. We need to get this right.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Penny Mordaunt) made a point about farmland and the wider risk. When farmland is flooded as part of a formal flood alleviation scheme, the landowner is compensated.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton introduced the debate with a powerful speech. He made a point about the governance of any arrangements. He was right to do so, and it is important that we take forward his concerns and make those arrangements clear in the announcement. I can assure him that the Department for Communities and Local Government and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs are working closely.
	I was concerned that the hon. Member for West Lancashire (Rosie Cooper) talked about shambolic local flood administration in her constituency. We have implemented the Flood and Water Management Act 2010, which arose from Sir Michael Pitt’s recommendations after 2007. I note that she said that that is not happening in her constituency, and I am happy to take that up.
	Many hon. Members made good points, which I could probably summarise as, “We want a decision and an announcement soon, because our constituents are worried.” I can understand that. We are doing other things to help those who might be struggling to find affordable insurance. We have published a guide to obtaining flood insurance in high flood risk areas in collaboration with the National Flood Forum, Which? and insurance industry representatives. The guide helps people navigate through the insurance market and acts as a signpost to actions that individuals can take to reduce their flood risk.
	Insurance can be found for reasonable prices if people talk to their insurer about their specific circumstances. The Environment Agency can provide supporting evidence on the local flood risk, for free, which people can use in discussions, and I want to hear from hon. Members if
	that is not happening. Different companies take different approaches to flood risk and it almost always pays to shop around.
	I recognise the great concern on both sides of the House on this matter. I want to give hon. Members and their constituents the assurance that they want, but I will not do it at any price. Yes, it has taken longer than any of us would have wished, but I hope that the deal we bring to the House will be better than what we have now, especially for those of our constituents who are on low incomes.

Dominic Raab: I thank the Backbench Committee for this debate, and I thank all hon. Members who have contributed for their excellent speeches. Some of them talked about the local dimension and some mentioned the national implications of these issues. Given the lack of time, I will not go into detail on all of the contributions, but the hon. Member for West Lancashire (Rosie Cooper) talked about the lack of a joined-up approach locally. My hon. Friend the Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Nicola Blackwood) talked about the human dimension to local flood damage and the importance of planning in the mitigation of flood risk.
	The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson), my hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir Robert Smith) and the hon. Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery) talked about the local aspects of flood insurance.
	My hon. Friend the Member for York Outer (Julian Sturdy) made an important point about what local community initiatives can do to reduce flood risk, and my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall (Sheryll Murray) highlighted the human toll across Cornwall. I am sure the whole House joins her in expressing our condolences to the bereaved family of her constituent.
	There were other powerful contributions. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff North (Jonathan Evans) made a powerful speech on his work with the all-party group. My hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Penny Mordaunt) talked about the problem of planning approvals in the flood plain. Other hon. Members were unable to attend the debate—for example, my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy)—but have expressed support for the motion, and I welcome that.
	The shadow Minister gave an important speech. He tracked the recent negotiations with a fine-toothed comb, if, at points, rather selectively. He had rather less to say on the previous Government’s progress, but none the less made some important points.
	The Minister described the arduous and urgent negotiations with the ABI and the importance of delivering a legal, workable deal that delivers value for money. I am sure the whole House joins him in wanting to achieve that result. We do not expect him to negotiate in public, but we do need urgently to deliver a new deal on flood insurance. We need to strengthen flood defences, address the planning failures of the past and ensure that UK environmental policies place a greater emphasis on resilience and adaptation in the future. I commend the motion to the House.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Resolved,
	That this House notes the Environment Agency’s estimate that 570,000 properties in England and Wales are at significant risk of flooding; recognises the efforts of the insurance industry and past and present governments to reach agreement to ensure flood insurance will be made available to all homes and small businesses beyond June 2013; calls on the insurance industry to negotiate in good faith to conclude those arrangements; and further calls on the Government to acknowledge the need to provide some support for those arrangements and ensure that resilience and adaptation to flood risks and other natural hazards are amongst its highest environmental priorities.

Easter Adjournment

Motion made, and Question proposed,
	That this House has considered matters to be raised before the forthcoming Adjournment.—(Mr Amess.)

DEPARTMENT FOR COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT

Stephen Pound: I am extremely grateful for this opportunity to ventilate the important issue of housing. A number of my colleagues applied, successfully, to speak on this subject as it is of intense importance to us. Although I and many of my colleagues are London MPs, we do not claim for a second that the housing crisis is unique to our capital city. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) has a housing waiting list of nearly 3,000 in his idyllic constituency. This problem affects all of us.
	The housing situation in London has gone beyond inconvenience, awkwardness or even embarrassment to something that it is now in a profound state of crisis. In Ealing, the borough in which I have spent virtually all my life, we have 23,416 people on the housing waiting list and there is no chance whatever of them finally finding accommodation. One reason for that is that in London the average house price is £421,395, and the average London income is £26,962. Even in dear, dear Ealing, the average house price is £374,707, whereas medium earnings are £25,392.

Meg Hillier: Does my hon. Friend think that the Government’s recent proposals in the Budget to provide cheap mortgages to anyone will help the situation?

Stephen Pound: My hon. Friend makes a telling point. In doing so she has rather stolen my thunder, but I forgive her in that as I do in all things. The Government may well have a policy, but it is retrogressive. The idea that the solution to the housing problem in London is to sell off the last few remaining properties at vast, eye-watering discounts and somehow assume that, in extremis, property can be sold as cheaply as £10,000, and that that money will then go forth, multiply and create a new property, is absolutely absurd. The other strand of that—somehow to blame the whole housing crisis in London on the immigrant community—proves once and for all that it is a lot easier to find a scapegoat than to find a solution. The scapegoat is being identified; the solution is not.
	Boroughs such as mine in Ealing are having to take incredibly exhaustive steps to build houses. We have a commitment to 500 new build houses over the next five years, but we also have an estate regeneration programme. We are using existing land to increase the estates that already exist, so that with hard work—exhaustive work—and a great deal of extremely fine officer time, we can create 5,044 units from a total of 3,653. I pay tribute to my colleague Councillor Hitesh Tailor in the London borough of Ealing, who has somehow managed to square the circle in the case of Copley close, an absolutely typical old Greater London council estate. Allegedly—I have never heard anyone disprove this, but I am told it is true—the architect who designed the estate never set
	foot in the borough of Ealing, let alone on Copley close. She took the scheme down from a shelf somewhere, ran it along the side of the railway line at Castle Bar Halt and left the people to get on with it. That is the scale of the problem we face.
	What is the solution? On the figures I gave earlier for median house prices, the solution is not to unleash some great entrepreneurial surge or for everyone somehow to manage to do 15 jobs and buy their own property. One of the solutions is to do as my children, aged 24 and 22, have done and start sending away for loft extension catalogues anonymously. They pour through the door at an extraordinary rate—and I have finally accepted the hint. However, one thing we really can do—I want the Minister to give particular attention to this—is to consider raising the housing revenue account cap, which was discussed in the other place on 12 March in a debate on the Growth and Infrastructure Bill. Three amendments were tabled by three distinguished Members of the upper House, all with considerable local authority experience.
	The idea at present is that there are streams against which local authorities can borrow, and not just the traditional ones, such as the Public Works Loan Board or the general fund. Some people have rather imaginatively —and in a way that is almost suggestive of Robert Maxwell in his prime—talked about borrowing against pension funds. That slightly worries me, but the housing revenue account, which has traditionally been massively in surplus, despite what some would have us believe, is a good thing to borrow against. The recent relaxations in this area are to the Government’s credit. Let us be honest: the Government have done the right thing on that. However, the present cap limits local authorities massively. They include not just boroughs such as Kensington and Chelsea, Westminster, and Hammersmith and Fulham, which have a property portfolio worth well over £2 billion, but even small, modest boroughs such as Ealing, which could borrow more and build more.
	Ultimately, let us never lose sight of first principles. A person who has no home has no hope, no job, usually no family and certainly no future. If someone loses their home, they lose everything. A person can lose their job and get another job; they can lose their health and get healthy again. Without a home, a person has nothing. Every single one of us in this House has a bounden duty to try to provide that simple, most basic of needs: accommodation. Raising the HRA cap to a more realistic level would give local authorities the power to do much, much more.

Andrew Bingham: Carbon monoxide poisoning can be fatal or lead to permanent health damage. Carbon monoxide is tasteless, odourless and colourless. It is very much a silent killer. It makes no distinction among its victims—however, the young and the elderly are more vulnerable, as in many other cases—and it creates risks for pregnant women and their unborn children. The symptoms include headaches, tiredness, dizziness and nausea. These are common symptoms, often associated with other things; therefore, carbon monoxide poisoning can go unnoticed for many years.
	The recent “Carbon Monoxide Incident Report”, published by the Gas Safety Trust, shows a welcome reduction in the incidence of carbon monoxide poisoning.
	However, the report deals only with the gas industry and gas-related incidents. Carbon monoxide poisoning is not solely a gas appliance issue. Carbon monoxide can emanate from many sources. It is caused when carbon fuels do not burn properly, so although there is a perception that the problem is restricted to gas fires in the home, it can go much wider than that. Any fuel-burning appliance that is not properly maintained has the potential to be a source of carbon monoxide. Cookers, AGAs and hot water heaters can all emit carbon monoxide.
	At this stage I would like to refer to my constituents Dave and Mary Jane Worswick. Their daughter Mary Ann was 15 years old. She was in her last year of school and dreamt of going on to study law. Owing to bad weather, she was studying at her friend’s house, in which there was a boiler that subsequently proved to be faulty. This fault was to cost Mary Ann and her friend their lives. I do not want to dwell on the subsequent legal processes that followed Mary Ann’s death, but I do want to pay tribute to Mr and Mrs Worswick who, having tragically lost their daughter, have continued their fight to raise the awareness of the dangers of carbon monoxide. As the Worswicks say to me, everyone is aware of the dangers of tobacco and alcohol, but awareness of carbon monoxide remains low and way behind. The opportunity to raise the matter today will, I hope, help raise the awareness of this killer among us.
	I want to highlight a further particular area where carbon monoxide can be fatal. My High Peak constituency is under about 12 feet of snow at the moment; it may seem odd, but I would like to raise the issue of camping, caravanning and barbecues. In a short while when the snow goes, I hope people will turn their thoughts to the summertime pursuits I have listed. As we sit outside a tent, caravan or motor home watching the sun go down in the summer, there is naturally a feeling of contentment, and possibly a barbecue shimmering in front of us, but we should be aware that this smouldering barbecue could be putting out carbon monoxide. Portable barbecues and portable heaters can and have been responsible for tragic deaths in campervans, caravans and mobile homes across the country. In Cornwall, Shropshire and other areas, tragedies have resulted from carbon monoxide emissions from this sort of appliance.
	Carbon monoxide poisoning is widely thought of as an issue caused by appliances in the home and in the winter. That is not true, as it has claimed victims in the summer months, too. As summer approaches, I want to highlight the dangers of this gas—not just in the home, not just in the winter, but all year round and seemingly in some innocuous conditions.
	Returning to the issue of carbon monoxide in the home, the Minister may well ask me what he can do. Over the years, numerous measures such as the removal of open-flued heaters from bathrooms and bedrooms and some landlord legislation have reduced the risks. The number of incidents is falling, but that is no reason for complacency.
	We heard last week that the Chancellor has announced some excellent measures to help people to buy new build homes. The Minister himself has advocated the building of more homes that are needed across the country. May I ask him today to consider making mandatory the inclusion of carbon monoxide detectors in all new build homes? I understand that there are concerns about increasing burdens on house builders in these difficult
	times, but I am sure that at a cost of a little over £10, carbon monoxide detectors could easily be fitted in conjunction with smoke detectors into new homes. This small step would ensure the safety of many people and spare many families the heartache suffered by my constituents, the Worswicks.

Meg Hillier: I rise to speak about the Government’s proposal to free up planning to allow offices not in use to be converted into homes. I want to talk about the overall policy, its impact on my constituency and, if there is time, the more general issues of housing need.
	In short, the Government believe that if all empty office space in the UK were converted into residential property, it would create 250,000 new homes, saving nearly £140 million in planning system costs. The Government tell us that, following the recession, between 7% and 9% of commercial space in the UK is empty, but that many developers have been put off converting buildings into homes because of the costs and time required to secure planning approval. That may be true in some parts of the world, but in my Hackney South constituency and particularly in Shoreditch, many developers have landbanked old offices and warehouses to cash in on rising housing prices as housing demand increases. They have been sitting on this for investment reasons rather than because they have been put off by the conversion costs. The conversion costs could soon be recouped, but every day that the developers sit and wait, the price of housing goes up.
	In Hackney, the legislation will have a major impact on our business and creative communities and on the local economy. We sit right on the edge or fringe of the City. In fact, Broadgate used to be in Hackney until a boundary change some years ago, and many of our business locations will be adversely affected by this policy. The area is coveted as a residential location, but not for local people. It has fancy loft apartments for those with very deep pockets. This will put business at risk, potentially leading to forced relocation and loss of jobs for local people in an area where unemployment is already high. Of course, all of us speaking in this debate are keen to see more homes built, but this policy will encourage landlords and freeholders to dash for the short-term gain of changing offices to residential homes, at a big long-term cost to our area and to one of the engine rooms of our current economy.
	Hackney South and Shoreditch, as business development hot spots, have often been visited by the Prime Minister and the Chancellor. I cannot seriously believe that No. 10 Downing street is enthusiastic about the policy as it applies to Shoreditch. Business growth is under threat from the proposal. Without an exemption, existing businesses will be under threat, too, so I strongly support full exemption for Hackney, which Hackney council has bid for. I urge the Minister to give us some comfort today to ensure that the area remains a thriving business location making an important contribution to the economic prosperity of London and the UK.
	To date, more than 1,000 businesses locally have signed a petition supporting exclusion. None of the active housing campaigners—whether they live in digs,
	are Hackney Homes tenants or members of tenants associations—have objected to the council’s stance on the policy because they see that the sort of housing we need is very different.
	Even the British Property Federation does not necessarily support the policy. Ian Fletcher, its policy director, talked about the acute shortage of houses but, in welcoming the step, said it
	“won’t work for all buildings, or in every area”.
	I say to the Minister that it will not work in Shoreditch and it should be stopped now.
	On general issues to do with housing, what we need in Hackney is not more high-price right-to-buy sales but more affordable family-sized homes. About a quarter of my constituents are under 16. We have families who need housing who cannot find it. Instead many of those families are being hit by this invidious—

Stephen Pound: Does my hon. Friend share my concern that one of the great flagships of Government policy, the spare room tax, will not have anything like the effect that they anticipate because most of the people with extra rooms are pensioners, who are exempt from the bedroom tax anyway? Does she share my despair that that is the mast to which the Government are nailing the flag of housing hope?

Meg Hillier: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. He is right. This invidious little tax is having a disastrous impact on many of my constituents. For example, if a family who occupy a three-bedroom property have two children of the same gender between the ages of 10 and 16, or two children of opposite gender under 10, they will be counted as under-occupying and be forced either to find the extra money to pay for the bedroom, until their children reach the age at which they qualify for the extra bedroom, or to give up their home and try to find, magically out of nowhere, a two-bedroom property. There is heavy demand for all types of social housing, while pensioners remain exempt.

Mel Stride: When it comes to the under-occupancy subsidy, is the hon. Lady not also concerned about the 250,000 people who are living in overcrowded housing and the 2 million people on the housing waiting list who are desperate to get into some of the 1 million excess rooms held in the social housing sector?

Meg Hillier: Of course, and as I mentioned earlier, this is a big issue, but that is to do mostly with the supply of housing and there are other ways to incentivise people to move out of their homes, rather than taxing them. Over the years, there have been schemes to provide money to help, for example, pensioner households with their removal costs and the costs of new furnishings for their new home to encourage them to move at a small price to free up the larger properties that are desperately needed. In my constituency, where about a quarter of residents are under 16, we need affordable family homes to be supplied. We also need reform of the private rented sector, which in this short speech I do not have time to go into, but the Government abolished the register of private landlords and are doing nothing to tackle the issue. “Generation rent” in my constituency is among the biggest in the country.
	The bedroom tax is an invidious policy. It will not free up rooms in the way the hon. Member for Central Devon (Mel Stride) expects. Up and down the country, people are being forced to move from their larger homes, although smaller homes are not available in their area, and they are being penalised if they cannot move. It is illogical. The policy provides a good cheap headline for the Government, but it will not deliver and it is having a negative impact on families’ lives. There are better ways to tackle the housing issue. Cross-party, we should look at supporting an increase in supply and ensuring that there are no loopholes in any schemes. In the Budget, the Chancellor talked about the mortgage guarantee, which will enable people to buy second homes. The Government have still not come up with a comprehensive rejection of that approach, so we can only take that as an assurance that people can buy a second home with a mortgage guarantee from the Government, while many of my constituents will continue to struggle to get on the housing ladder, or into a form of tenure that provides them and their families with security and the strong base in the community that we all want to see.

Alison Seabeck: I begin by making my usual declaration of indirect interests.
	I am raising an issue brought to me by a constituent who has serious concerns about the way in which gas safety certificates are dispensed. She recently bought a bungalow, and was supplied by the previous owner with building regulation compliance certificates, including gas and electricity safety check certificates. Having got those certificates, she trusted, as anyone would, that all the work and inspections had been carried out to the required standard, as did her conveyancing solicitor and surveyor.
	It later emerged that all the traders and engineers who had issued those certificates were personal friends of the previous owner, and it appears that the certificates were issued without them either checking that the work had been carried out or that it was up to the correct standard. Electrical and gas appliance installations such as the under-floor heating, boiler and heating system had been blindly certified by Gas Safe and ELECSA-registered engineers as a favour to a mate. There have been some consequences, such as de-registering the ELECSA trader, but the main concerns remain. The Electrical Contractors’ Association has accepted that its engineer was very wrong to issue a certificate for work he had neither carried out nor inspected for safety. However, it appears Gas Safe has been reluctant to take the same approach.
	I by no means pretend to be an expert in the field of building regulations and appliance safety, but I do find it incredibly odd that although gas and electrical engineers can be struck off the register if they negligently leave an appliance unsafe, the same does not apply to those who issue certificates without doing or inspecting the work. There really does appear to be not simply a loophole but a gap in the legislation that endangers lives. My constituent sustained an injury as a result of the faulty appliances, and informed me that it was pure luck that the later inspecting engineer, who condemned the appliance, was not electrocuted.
	Clause 57(1)f of the Building Act 1984 states:
	“If a person…recklessly gives a notice or certificate that…purports to comply with those requirements, and contains a statement that is false or misleading in a material particular, he is guilty of an offence.”
	Should the same rules not apply to those issuing gas and electricity safety certificates? My constituent has had to re-check one appliance after another after they failed to operate. The inspecting engineer found that the consumer unit was faulty and the sockets were not earthed. The boiler had parts missing, such as the mini-expansion vessel and the pressure-reducing valve. The under-floor heating system had parts missing: the pump, balancing valves and the heat-reducing valve. Also, the boiler was not earthed and the isolation switch had not been wired in. It appears that another blind certificate was issued, falsely to certify the safety of the boiler.
	These are not just small mishaps or omissions, but fundamental issues that could have had very serious consequences. There is an urgent need for both Government and the industry to take this matter very seriously indeed. There has also been a considerable financial cost for my constituent. We need to establish who has the power of enforcement in such cases. Trading standards said that my constituent had misunderstood the issue, and she was repeatedly told that the engineer was certified to carry out the work. He might have been, but he still did not do the job properly. Trading standards also apparently said to my constituent that these things happen all the time—all the time!—but there is very little scope for pursuing the issue owing to the lack of relevant legislation.
	It is my understanding that Gas Safe decided to investigate the engineer after persistent communication from my constituent. At present, the engineer is still on the register, even though the appliance certified by him failed to meet even the most basic safety checks. Yet Gas Safe, while seemingly not acting in this instance, took space in my local paper in January advising DIY-ers not to take risks with gas.
	Legally, my constituent is also in a tricky situation: as she does not have a direct contract with the engineers in question, she cannot bring a case against either of them. Her conveyancing solicitor advised her that it was a matter of “buyer beware”. My constituent is frustrated because she was aware—she had done everything by the book and had accepted, as had her surveyor, that the certificates were valid and had been issued by a “trusted” professional. This practice of false or blind certification has to stop. Plymouth’s director for place has said that
	“in essence the fact of the matter is that we are used to the presence of consumer protection legislation when we buy goods from a high street trader but those protections are considerably lacking when we buy our largest purchase, a house”.
	What can the Minister do, through his Department, to liaise with those involved in consumer protection to put an end to this deceit?

Meg Hillier: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I regret that when I spoke earlier I neglected to draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, and I seek to rectify that now.

Lindsay Hoyle: That has now been noted and rectified.

Jeremy Corbyn: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing North (Stephen Pound), I wish to discuss the housing crisis in London, although five minutes is a very short time in which to try to describe a truly appalling situation. Some 360,000 families are on the housing waiting list in London—that excludes the large number of single people who usually cannot even get on the waiting list—and 750,000 Londoners are living in grossly overcrowded accommodation. The housing solutions for them are non-existent, and will be unless there is an enormous change in Government policy and in the policy of the Mayor of London towards this crisis.

Gareth Thomas: My hon. Friend is an inner-London MP for an area that has a particularly severe overcrowding problem, but does he agree that this issue affects the outer-London suburbs as much as inner London? Does he acknowledge that a huge number of people in Harrow in my constituency are also waiting, without a great deal of hope, for a new home?

Jeremy Corbyn: This is indeed a time for inner and outer London solidarity, and I am happy to declare that act of solidarity with my hon. Friends the Members for Ealing North, for Harrow West (Mr Thomas) and for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), and with many other outer-London boroughs. To be homeless in London is to be homeless in London, to be overcrowded is to be overcrowded, and to be on the waiting list is clearly to be on the waiting list.
	The solutions to this situation have to be sought. Sadly, what was offered in the Budget is not a solution; I suspect that it will result in those with deep pockets being able to buy yet more properties, which they will then keep empty, as part of the disgrace of private sector land banking that is going on in London. I will discuss the other solutions concerning owner-occupation, social rented housing and private rented housing in a moment. First, I wish to deal with the issue of the large number of empty properties, often at the high end of the market, deliberately kept empty by people who have large amounts of money that comes from dubious sources. They have bought these properties in order to make a great deal of money out of them at a later date when their value increases. Given the current housing crisis, we should be giving powers to local authorities to take over properties that are deliberately kept empty, so that the people in desperate housing need can get somewhere to live in London.

Alison Seabeck: Does my hon. Friend share my concern that the spare homes subsidy could be misused by exactly the people he is talking about, and that Government and taxpayers’ money could be misused?

Jeremy Corbyn: My hon. Friend makes a strong point. There is no clear definition of how this subsidy being offered by the Chancellor will be used, so it seems to be an opportunity for those with deep pockets to make a great deal of money for themselves. The people in desperate housing need, such as those represented by
	me or by my hon. Friends the Members for Harrow West or for Ealing North, will not have that same opportunity.

Mark Reckless: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Jeremy Corbyn: I will not give way any more, because I would lose my time.
	The second area I wish to discuss is the social rented sector in London—council housing. The problems of housing in London are not new; they were acute in the 19th century and in the early 20th century. It was the inspiration and idealism of the Labour-controlled London county council in the inter-war years that did a great deal to build decent homes for people who were living in appalling slums. Indeed, in my constituency and others one can see the products of the inspirational work done by Herbert Morrison and others. The post-second world war council house building did an incredible amount to give people decent places to live.
	I had the great honour of being a member of Haringey borough council from 1974 to 1983 and I remember complaining in 1979 that we had built only 1,000 council houses that year. I was complaining that we could have done more, but 1,000 is more than have been built in the whole of London in most of the past few years. I am critical of my party in government and of the current Government for not doing enough to build new council housing.
	The Government’s solution is to suggest to local authorities that they should raise rents to 80% of the market rent to raise some funds to develop new housing. In my borough and those of most colleagues in London, council house rents would more than double. Islington borough council, to its credit, has refused to do that and has managed to develop a substantial building programme on its own land from its own resources. But obviously, there are limits to that programme, imaginative though it is.
	We need central Government involvement in the building of new council homes as a matter of enormous urgency. The Mayor of London does not seem fully to grasp all that. In fact, there are quite a lot of things the Mayor of London does not fully grasp, but one of them is the essential need for the building of new council houses. The number of social rented properties—that is, council or housing association properties—built under his watch and by his means has reduced from 11,000 in 2010-11 to only 983 in the current year. Goodness knows how much lower than that the numbers will go in future years. We must kindly ask central Government to get a grip of the situation and do their best to intervene with the Mayor and with borough councils to ensure that there is a rapid increase in the supply of council housing in London. That is the best and most efficient way of solving the housing crisis. It provides jobs, provides homes and helps people to have a secure place to live.
	The final area I want to mention was covered in a ten-minute rule Bill that I introduced and it is the private rented sector. In London, 800,000 families live in that sector—it is the fastest growing housing sector by a long way. In my constituency, a third of all households are in the private rented sector and that number is rising fast. Generally speaking, people who live in the private rented sector pay the most to live in the least efficient,
	worst repaired and worst maintained properties and in the least regulated sector. Not all landlords are bad—some are very good—but the lack of regulation means that those who are bad can get away with it. We need regulation of the letting agencies, registration and regulation of all private rented accommodation and, in my view, rent controls.
	The housing benefit cap is acting as an agent for the social cleansing of the poorest people on housing benefit all over central London. They are being driven out of their areas and driven out of London. For that reason, we need not just to control housing benefit expenditure but to control it by controlling the rent levels instead, rather than forcing tenants out of their homes—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. I call John McDonnell.

John McDonnell: I want to speak about the protection of the green belt in Hillingdon. I have lived in my constituency and represented it in various guises for nearly 40 years. From the earliest days I shared a dream that we would surround our largely industrial and urban area, which is encircled with factory sites, offices, major motorways and airports to north and south, with country parks and open spaces. Decades on, we have succeeded, with new country parks to the south, west and east and the regeneration of our traditional parks and green-belt open spaces. That has been a tremendous community achievement. I have set up friends groups for each park and worked with organisations such as the London wildlife trust, A Rocha and Hillingdon natural history society to improve and open up our open spaces.
	One of our greatest achievements is the creation of the award-winning Lake Farm country park. That land next to Hayes town centre was owned by EMI, which in the early 1990s sought to dig gravel from it and turn it into a rubbish tip. I set up a friends group, mobilised the local community and persuaded the council on a cross-party basis not only to reject the planning application but to buy the land to create a country park.
	Ironically, it is the council that is now planning to build on our country park. It proposes to build a three- form entry primary school on the park, putting at risk the natural habitats of the skylarks and other abundant birdlife and wildlife on the site as well as taking away a considerable portion of the park from public enjoyment. That has caused uproar in our community.
	The council argues that although the development is contrary to local and national policies, and those of the Mayor of London, on protecting the green belt, there are exceptional circumstances because of the need for additional school places and because there is no other site for the new school in the area. The planning process by which Hillingdon council reached that decision has plumbed the depths of disgraceful, mendacious and, at times, farcical local government incompetence.

Stephen Pound: I urge my hon. Friend to resist this even more strongly that he is already inclined to. Were he to enter London along the broad, majestic A40, he would see the three mounds of Northarla fields, which were achieved by Ealing council and the Northolt and Greenford countryside park, influenced by, in admiration of and in tribute to the work of his borough of Hillingdon.

John McDonnell: If this goes ahead, all green-belt open space in west London will be vulnerable to attack.
	On the demand for pupil places, it is only three years since the council proposed closing and selling off a local school because it was surplus to requirement. Then, 12 months ago, we were told that the projections for pupil numbers had rocketed and new schools were desperately needed. In particular, a three-form entry school had to be built.
	Bizarrely, the council has failed properly to take into account a new four-form entry school being built, with the enthusiastic support of the Secretary of State for Education, at Guru Nanak college, which is in the same ward. The overwhelming number of pupils applying for places at the college have come from the local area, thus freeing up places in local schools. The council has also refused to take into account the request by a new two-form entry school in the same wards to expand to at least three, if not four, forms of entry. That would obviate the need to build on our local park.
	The council failed to search adequately for alternative sites for the new school. Initially, it refused to release its search site report to the general public, or to me, on grounds of commercial confidentiality. When the report was finally released, we discovered that the council was rushing to sell off the most obvious alternative site to a developer for housing. The council’s planning meeting, where the council gave itself planning permission, descended into farce, as petitioners were ignored, new figures were presented to councillors on the night and it was revealed by a Labour councillor and committee representatives that the land in question is subject to a section 106 agreement from the 1990s, which the planning chair and the officer seemed oblivious to.
	Nevertheless, the planning application was sent off to the Mayor, who we hope will adhere to his election pledges to protect the green belt. I know that he has stated his concern about school places being used as an excuse to make incursions into the green belt in London.

Andy Slaughter: I am afraid that my hon. Friend is telling a familiar story. My local Conservative-led council is in the process of selling off a third of a public park in the most deprived part of my constituency to a private owner, who will then charge £90 an hour for people to play football there.

John McDonnell: I hope that the Minister and the Department will monitor this in London. The Mayor has raised his concerns. A pattern is emerging of excuses relating to the number of pupil places needed. Alternative sites that have been discussed, particularly brownfield sites, are not being examined properly, and then the issue is used as an excuse for incursions into the green belt, sometimes for profiteering, as my hon. Friend suggests.
	My concern is that if the council gets permission for a primary school, it will then roll out to a secondary school, and then it will argue for housing on the site. We will then lose the whole park, which is award-winning, and which we achieved on a cross-party basis. The planning application has gone to the Mayor, who we hope will reject it or refer it back. However, this morning I discovered that the council has withdrawn the application
	from the Mayor and rushed off to a barrister for counsel’s opinion on how to get over the section 106 problem, to which it has now clearly been alerted.
	Hillingdon council—I raised this point before Christmas —is in chaos. That is not a party political point, because I would say the same whoever was in control. I was in local government for nearly 30 years. I think that the council is degenerating into incompetent farce. At the moment, planning is left in the hands of consultants, who have no knowledge of the area or its planning history. Indeed, they often ask for directions to sites during visits because they are unaware of the sites’ existence. Councillors have too much interest in development or housing, and many of them have associations with developers and as landlords.
	Before Christmas, I appealed to the Secretary of State to intervene on Hillingdon council, and, if necessary, to take the drastic action of sending commissioners in, because I was worried about how contracts were being awarded. I understand that there is now an internal investigation into a number of those contracts. However, I have had enough. This planning issue has now gone beyond anything that is acceptable. I appeal again to the Secretary of State, and I am willing to see him take direct control over Hillingdon council and restore some semblance of good governance within the area.

Mark Reckless: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to speak in this debate following my Select Committee meeting and in advance of the planning Minister’s response.
	Earlier this month, Natural England declared Ministry of Defence land at Lodge Hill in my constituency to be a site of special scientific interest. In numerous plans over 18 years, the site has been clearly designated for 5,000 homes and for employment opportunities for 5,000 people. A total of £35.5 million has been spent to get to the point of planning consent being granted. After all this time and money, the council is concerned, to put it mildly, to be thwarted at the last hurdle by Natural England, which does not consider the economic impacts. The council leader, Rodney Chambers, responded as follows:
	“This is very disappointing news to receive from unelected quangocrats at Natural England. As a local authority we are eager for this scheme, which is on government owned land, to progress and deliver the houses and jobs we badly need.
	The government is constantly telling us that we should be going for growth, kick starting the economy and fighting the recession and yet here we are with a shovel ready project that would deliver 5,000 much needed homes being delayed by a government agency.”
	The reason for this, we are told by Natural England, is that a study of some description has discovered that 84 nightingales might use the site. The comparison to be drawn is between those 84 nightingales and homes for 12,000 people and jobs for a further 5,000 people. We are told by the Prime Minister that we are in a global race, but it is not clear that that message has yet filtered through to bodies such as Natural England.
	There have been similar instances locally. On the Isle of Grain, a proposal for the generation of 6,000 jobs on a site owned by a National Grid company has been
	delayed for some three years because it is possibly the habitat of a certain type of bug. Near Medway, in the Swanscombe area, a proposal that would deliver 27,000 jobs has been delayed because of concerns about a breed of spider. At Dungeness, there are concerns about vegetated shingle that has to be considered in the context of the development of power generation.
	It is not surprising that council leaders in the area say that we need to end the absurd situation of a non-elected Government agency dictating to national and local government on how to run things. Medway is an example of a council that is pro-development, that wants to support the Minister and that wants to show that it is open for business. Will the Minister assure me that our local council will be able to decide where it is best for development to go, not Ministers or their inspectors, and still less these quangos? We have heard of the bonfire of the quangos; in the case of Natural England, it appears to have fizzled out.
	I understand that the executive board of the body has taken this decision, that it is going to be reviewed and that there is, as ever, some consultation process, but I am not sure whether that is a mere formality or a genuine process. We are told that in July the decision will be reviewed by the full board of Natural England, but we do not know if that will be anything more than a rubber-stamping exercise. I would appreciate the Minister’s views on whether it will be a genuine exercise and whether the board will really consider the wider representations or the Government’s policy. If it is not able to consider Government policy, how can democratic Ministers have their way when competing in what they call the global race? When councils such as Medway have planned to develop land for many years and have spent millions of pounds, will they be able to make the decisions that are required?

Nicholas Boles: Having heard the range and quality of the contributions from Members from all around the House, I feel like an unwitting contestant on “Just a Minute”. I fear that after I address the subjects that have been raised, on which I am so profoundly inexpert, Members may conclude that I am actually a contestant on “I’m Sorry I Haven’t A Clue”.
	First, I will address the hon. Members who have spoken on behalf of their constituencies in London on a range of issues. The hon. Member for Ealing North (Stephen Pound) spoke about the cap on borrowing against the housing revenue account. I am glad that he welcomed the flexibility that the Government have provided to authorities to undertake prudential borrowing. I reassure him that within the cap for the 29 stock-holding authorities in London, there is £1.4 billion of borrowing headroom. I would encourage local authorities to take advantage of that. He will be aware, although his party often professes not to be, that unfortunately we have to maintain strict controls on the deficit and to limit increases in our national debt. That is why the Government are not considering relief of the cap.
	The hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier) made an eloquent argument for the exemption application against the new permitted development right
	for change of use from commercial to residential. She will be aware that we are considering a great number of exemption applications from authorities across the country and will understand that we need to apply the criteria that have been set out fairly and objectively to all authorities. I therefore hope that she will understand that I cannot give her any specific reassurances about the result of the application from her local authority. I can reassure her that the process is happening as quickly and fairly as possible, with outside expert help to assess whether the criteria apply.
	The hon. Lady also raised the removal of the spare room subsidy from people in her constituency who are in receipt of housing benefit. I remind her, as she will have heard many times from this Dispatch Box from people who are much more senior than I am, that the housing benefit bill has doubled to £22 billion a year. The removal of the spare room subsidy will save half a billion pounds a year. When she or her colleagues come up with another way to save that money, the Government will be delighted to hear it.
	The hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) raised similar issues about the housing crisis in London and spoke of the need to build new council housing. He will be aware that councils can build new council housing. Many councils of all stripes are seeking to do so. I disagree with his idea that rent control would be nirvana for his constituents and for those who have to manage the housing benefit bill. The last time that we had rent control, there was a collapse in the private rented sector because investors were unwilling to invest in it. Our approach is very different. We are investing in the private rented sector through a generous scheme of guarantees that has been over-subscribed and to which the Chancellor committed more money in his Budget last week.

Jeremy Corbyn: What would the Minister say to my constituents who are faced with a gap, in some cases of more than £100 a week, between their housing benefit and their new private rent and who will be forced out of the community where their children go to school and their families live, leading to community disruption? What would he say to them when they are sitting across the table in an advice bureau?

Nicholas Boles: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I have spoken to a number of people in my constituency who face the same situation and not a great deal more housing is available. I accept that it will be very difficult for certain people, and I, as I am sure that he is, am doing everything that I can to work with councils on their local housing solutions and with Citizens Advice to put people in touch with alternative options and to encourage them to explore the possibility where appropriate—often, with families, it will not be, but for single people, it might be—of renting out spare rooms to offset the reduction. We have to save money from the housing benefit bill, however, and we have not yet heard any better or fairer suggestions from the Opposition on how to do that. When we have heard that, perhaps we will be able to discuss it.
	The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) raised a different but important issue about protecting the green belt and how that is assessed against the importance of providing new school places. He will
	understand that because he has asked that the proposal about which he is concerned be called in by the Secretary of State, I cannot comment on it. I can reassure him, however, that the national planning policy framework is clear about the protections for the green belt: there can only be development on the green belt in very special circumstances, so planning authorities would have to meet quite a tough test in law, if they wished to approve such a proposal. That has to be balanced, however, against the equally explicit commitment that great weight be given to the need to create and expand schools. I cannot prejudge how that will be arrived at in that case, but he has made an eloquent and passionate argument. Officials in my Department and I, as Planning Minister, have heard it and will take it into account when we consider the proposal.
	I think that I can now move away from London to my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Andrew Bingham), who spoke movingly and effectively on behalf of the constituents of his who faced the unbearable tragedy of losing their daughter, Mary Ann. He will be aware that the Government constantly consider ways to raise awareness of the risks of carbon monoxide, and I can tell him that there will now be a label on barbecues to warn people of the risk of carbon monoxide poisoning. He will also be aware that building regulations require a carbon monoxide alarm when a solid fuel appliance is installed in a home. It is not currently proposed to make it mandatory to install those alarms in new homes, as he suggests doing, but he has made a strong argument, and I know that the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr Foster), will be keen to listen to his concerns and consider them as he reviews building regulations.
	The hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Alison Seabeck) told a tale of woe on behalf of her constituents about what appeared to be the fraudulent issuance of a safety certificate. I cannot comment in detail, because it is not my area of expertise; I can only reassure her that we will write to the Health and Safety Executive and Ministers in the Department for Work and Pensions, who oversee the HSE, to ensure that she receives an adequate answer on how her constituents’ interests can be properly protected.
	I turn, finally I think—no doubt, someone will holler if I have missed them out—to my hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Strood (Mark Reckless). I can well understand the dismay of Medway council, which is seeking to do what all hon. Members across the House understand is necessary: to make provision to build more houses. I can well understand their dismay that such a major scheme should be put at risk by a declaration that the site is to be viewed as a site of special scientific interest. I cannot comment on the merits of the decision or the scheme, but I can reassure him of two things. First, notification of a site as an SSSI does not necessarily mean that it cannot be developed, but it does mean that the developer must make advanced efforts to mitigate, or, if they cannot do that entirely, to compensate for any impact on the site. Only last week, I met the chairman of Natural England, and I would be happy to explore with him the status of such a notification, how it came about and whether it can be managed to ensure that the houses needed for people in my hon. Friend’s constituency are built. I hope that has answered all the questions raised by hon. Members.

Nigel Evans: Thank you for keeping your remarks short so that we can have as many speakers as possible in the next general debate. If everybody turns up, there are 28 Members who would like to contribute to the David Amess debate—[Laughter.] I mean the general debate. We will start with a five-minute limit on speeches, but if we need to we will reduce it to four minutes so that everybody can at least get in and get something on the record before the Easter recess.

General Matters

Jason McCartney: I do not know about you, Mr Deputy Speaker, but I am rather tired of all the mitherers and doom-mongers. We know the types: those quick to criticise, quick to talk down, and quick to jump on any passing hashtag bandwagon. However, as Lord Mandelson said recently, those without a plan of their own should not be criticising those with plans. Many knowledgeable business folk have told me that the only thing holding back big levels of growth in our country is confidence, and we can get that only by recognising and celebrating success. Therefore, in the next few minutes as we head into the Easter recess I want to celebrate some of the many wonderful things going on in my Colne Valley constituency.
	In Colne Valley, 1,220 apprenticeships started in the last academic year, and another 360 in first quarter of this academic year—a 74% increase on the last year of the previous Labour Government. Right at the forefront of that increase in apprenticeships is Kirklees college, under the leadership of the inspirational Peter McCann. A couple of weeks ago during national apprenticeship week, I went to meet one local apprentice who has a dream job. Helen is working up at Holmfirth vineyard—what a great place to work!—which not only hosted thousands of wine tours last year, but also offers quality homemade food and drink. Ironically, it is in Holme valley, which hosted many visitors on the back of the famous long-running BBC TV series “Last of the Summer Wine”. It is therefore fitting that a vineyard is now proving to be the big, new honey pot for tourism in my part of the world.
	As we know, apprentices need full-time jobs to go to, and I am particularly proud that manufacturing is going great guns in my part of Yorkshire. I am proudly wearing a lapel badge that says “Huddersfield—the Place to Make It”, which is a manufacturing campaign in my part of the world. Even in London I see great examples of that manufacturing. The glass pods on the London Eye are made in my constituency at Novaglaze in Lockwood, and the textiles for the suit that David Beckham wore at the royal wedding a couple of years ago were manufactured in my constituency. On the way home tonight, those who go on a London bus should look at the flecked upholstery, which has probably been manufactured by Camira Fabrics in Meltham—we are very proud of that.
	Down the road from Meltham is a wonderful engineering company, CNC Mill Turn Solutions, which is taking on apprenticeships and winning new contracts. Many of those are defence contracts, including for the new Ocelot Snatch Land Rover. Those are companies that I have visited recently, and the facts back up my remarks. Statistics from an independent consultancy firm show that 1,187 new companies started in Huddersfield and Colne Valley last year—an 8% increase year on year, and a record for any year.
	On food and drink, I have already mentioned the vineyard, while local breweries on my patch—including the Linfit, Mallinsons, Magic Rock, Empire, Golcar, Milltown, Nook Brewhouse and Riverhead micro-breweries —were very pleased with the Chancellor’s news that he was cancelling the beer duty escalator. They are pleased
	with some of the Government’s moves. Pure North Cider also makes cider in my constituency, so it is not just wine and beer that we make.
	We are very lucky with regard to education. Huddersfield university will welcome 5,000 new students this year. On the sporting front, Huddersfield Town are holding their own in the championship and have a big game against Hull City at the weekend, and the Huddersfield Giants rugby league club are currently proudly top of the super league. On Sunday 6 July 2014 the Tour de France will come to Huddersfield and the Holme valley, and even to my village in Honley.

Andrew Bingham: I am pleased that the Tour de France will go through my hon. Friend’s constituency, but I am sure he realises that that will only be the warm-up for when it goes through my High Peak constituency and the hills the cyclists will encounter.

Jason McCartney: I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, but the cyclists will be very tired by the time they get to his constituency because they will have taken the long climb up Holme Moss to the top of the Pennines, where it is very picturesque.
	I will leave Members with all those positive things going on in my constituency. It is really important, given all the doom-mongers, to celebrate things and back business, enterprise and entrepreneurs. Let us also back apprentices and Yorkshire.

Nigel Evans: We all now know what we will be doing on 6 July 2014.

Valerie Vaz: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Jason McCartney), who did not say whether he was made in Colne Valley. I apologise to Members and the Official Reporters for the speed at which I am going to speak, but it is because this Back-Bench day has been hijacked by various other issues.
	I want to raise two issues, one local and the other national. The first relates to a constituent of mine, Mrs Brenda Pressdee, a senior citizen who faces the prospect of having the home she has lived in for 38 years sold, but she cannot remember why. It is important to highlight this case because it could happen to any one of us, our family or our constituents.
	It is unclear how Mrs Pressdee came into contact with Dream Money Ltd. It brokered an agreement and she had to pay £3,000 in fees because she signed a loan agreement for a second charge on her property of £36,000. Once the brokerage fee and all the fees for lawyers, solicitors and title insurance had been paid, the total charges and interest came to £32,995, which is 99.9% of the £33,000 Mrs Pressdee had initially requested. By December 2012, with interest and charges and charges associated with arrears, Mrs Pressdee’s total debt was £51,713.74. She is unable to keep up her payments and now has to sell her home under the mortgage rescue scheme while living there and renting it out. As a result, Blemain Finance will receive a £55,000 redemption from the sale of her home.
	The situation is heartbreaking. Mrs Pressdee signed a piece of paper saying:
	“I can confirm that I intend to repay my loan at the end of the term by the sale of my property.”
	The note is dated 19 December 2007 and she clearly did not understand what was going on. I do not think that she received legal advice on the loan agreement.
	Who can protect Mrs Pressdee? The Office of Fair Trading’s guidance on irresponsible lending only came into force in March 2010, so she was not covered with regard to the finance company’s actions. I do not think that she had the capacity to enter into the agreement. She was continually charged for every letter written. On two separate occasions she was charged £230 in legal costs, so the bills went up.
	The OFT cannot help Mrs Pressdee, but what about the Consumer Credit Act 1974? Section 140A centres on the unfair relationships between creditors and debtors. Thanks to the Library, we have managed to find two cases against the company concerned. Under section 140A, Peter Bentley challenged the right to repossession of his property. The High Court judge in Cardiff asked both parties to rewrite the loan agreement, and they have done so.
	In the second case Blemain Finance took repossession proceedings against Mrs Thomas from Penzance. Three loan agreements had to be rewritten. The judge held that they were unenforceable, because the amount of credit on them was incorrectly stated, so those repossession proceedings were dismissed.
	I wrote to the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, who passed it on the Office of Fair Trading. The Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson), wrote to me yesterday to say that she had nothing further to add, but the Department can do something—it can consider winding the company up in the public interest. The Minister could also meet me and the Pressdee family to see what we can do to help Mrs Pressdee, a vulnerable pensioner who has been driven out of her home. We should be protecting her.
	I raised the issue of marine conservation zones with the Leader of the House, who suggested I should have an Adjournment debate, and here we are. What is the problem? Some £8.8 million has been spent on a consultation. Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs guidance states that the lack of scientific certainty should not postpone the decision. For two and a half years, we have had a steering committee of 44 industry representatives and 12 conservation non-governmental organisations, and the announcement of the 21 designated zones, and 28 species of mammals and fish are under threat. I am a member of the National Trust. It is important to protect not only the seas, but the coastline, because it is a finely balanced eco-system.
	I therefore have some questions for the Minister. What is the timetable? Can he state whether there will be a re-consultation on redefining the guidance on an ecological coherence network? Parliament needs to know before any more public money is wasted on a further consultation. If not now, when?

John Glen: I should like to talk about the Maldives. People often ask why the Member of Parliament for Salisbury is so concerned about the smallest Asian country. I am concerned because the ousted President of the Maldives has a strong association with my constituency. He was educated just outside it
	and has spent a lot of time in exile there. Since I came to the House, I have taken a great interest in the Maldives. The situation there is dire and appalling, and it deeply concerns me. I am also very worried by the reaction of the international community.
	After many years fighting for free elections, in 2008 Anni Nasheed was elected as President of that small country. Last year, a few weeks after I went out there to help his party prepare for the upcoming elections, he was ousted in an appalling coup. The country is now in a critical state. The free and fair elections that should happen later this year are in the balance. It is difficult to get clarity from the international community, and even from the British Government, on how assertive it is prepared to be to deal with the country.
	There is systematic corruption among the judiciary, and almost every week new stories of human rights violations reach the press. Although the ousted Nasheed is expected to run in the forthcoming elections, it is difficult to say that he will have a clear pathway to the elections, given the legal machinations put up against him almost every week.
	As I have mentioned, there are the most vile human rights abuses in the Maldives. A 15-year-old girl has been sentenced to 100 lashes in public when she turns 18, and to eight months of house arrest. It is appalling that the international community can apparently do nothing about the situation. I stand today to generate some publicity, I hope, so that people are aware of the direness of the situation in the country.
	The prosecutor-general stated that the 15-year-old was charged with the crime of pre-marital sex, which emerged from a police investigation. That followed a completely ludicrous allegation. It was alleged that the 15-year-old had given birth and that her step-father had murdered the baby and buried her. The step-father was accused of molesting the 15-year-old, and the victim’s mother has been accused of concealing a crime and failing to report the molestation. We will only get changes in the Maldives if there is public awareness of what is going on. Similar things are happening in many countries across the globe, but I am not prepared to just stand back and let these things happen.
	The Maldives need free elections later this year, so that Anni Nasheed, that honourable and decent man, who was educated in this country, can stand as a candidate, unimpeded. The illegitimate president must ensure that those elections take place. Recently, Anni Nasheed’s Maldivian Democratic party organised a mass rally with 7,000 or 8,000 people participating, but when the rally reached Dr Waheed’s residence—that is the person who grabbed control last year—riot police aggressively charged the crowd. Many people reported that the police used excessive force in breaking up the rally, and many injured women remain in hospital. Video footage shows the police attempting to arrest bystanders and using excessive force.
	I urge the British Government to acknowledge what is really happening and to stand firm later this year.

Yasmin Qureshi: I rise to bring to the House’s attention the resolution passed in the European Parliament on January 2009 to commemorate
	the anniversary of the Srebrenica genocide. My interest in Bosnia and Yugoslavia arises from having worked for the United Nations mission in Kosovo between 2000 and 2002.
	The background to the massacre began after the break-up of the former Yugoslavia in the 1990s which led to conflict within Bosnia. That war sparked numerous atrocities, including the “mass rape” of women, as defined by the United Nations war crimes tribunal. Studies estimate that as many as 20,000 to 50,000 Bosniak Muslim women were raped by Serb forces and many were abused for months.
	One of the most prominent and gravest incidents took place in July 1995. The Bosnian town of Srebrenica, which was, at the time, an isolated enclave stated to be a protected zone by a United Nations Security Council resolution of 16 April 1993, fell into the hands of the Serbian militias. During several days of carnage, more than 8,000 Muslim men and boys, who had sought safety in this area under the protection of the United Nations forces, were executed by Serb forces which had entered Bosnian territory from Serbia. Nearly 25,000 women, children and elderly people were forcibly deported, making this event the biggest war crime to take place in Europe since the end of the second world war.
	This tragedy was declared an act of genocide by the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia. In January 2009, the European Parliament overwhelmingly adopted a resolution to proclaim 11 July a day of commemoration of Srebrenica throughout the European Union. It is a day on which we should express condolence and solidarity with the families of the victims, many of whom are living without final confirmation of the fate of their relatives and a day on which our thoughts should be with those who were killed and those who lost loved ones.
	The European Parliament resolution called the Srebrenica genocide
	“the biggest war crime in Europe since the end of WWII.”
	The Assembly called it
	“a symbol of the international community’s impotence to intervene and protect civilians.”
	I call on the Government to commemorate appropriately the anniversary of the Srebrenica act of genocide by supporting the European Parliament’s recognition of 11 July as the day of commemoration of the Srebrenica genocide. I also urge the Government to make further efforts to bring the many remaining fugitives to justice. We should be doing more to support the valuable work of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia.
	Finally, I cannot stress enough the importance of reconciliation in the European integration process, particularly with regard to the role of religious communities, the media and education, so that people of all ethnicities can overcome the tensions of the past, move forward, and begin a peaceful and sincere co-existence in the interests of enduring peace, stability and economic growth. In working to move forward, we must not forget the lessons of the past. It is therefore vital that this genocide, which has been described by the United Nations and the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia as the worst since the end of the second world war, is appropriately commemorated in the United Kingdom and in all European countries.

Stephen Gilbert: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi) and my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen). They have shown that Backbench Business Adjournment debates can provide a real insight into different issues, and they have put them on the record. Both hon. Members were sombre in their tone, but I was pleased to note that the hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) and I have something in common: we have both been members of Haringey council. I was slightly surprised to find out—because I know him reasonably well—that my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Jason McCartney) describes himself as an optimist.
	The policy of incineration is being pursued across the country. Specifically, an incinerator is planned in St Dennis in my constituency. Since before I was a parliamentary candidate, I have said consistently that Cornwall should not go down the route of incinerating its municipal waste. I have said consistently that St Dennis is the wrong place for an incinerator and that incineration is the wrong solution and technology. I have argued for several years that cheaper, cleaner and greener alternatives are available to local authorities, yet in Cornwall and in other local authorities across the country we see a determination to continue to pursue this one-size-fits-all solution and off-the-shelf easy win to deal with municipal waste when alternatives are available. Yes, they might require a little extra effort, but in the long run they can deliver huge savings in carbon emissions and money. Road movements would be reduced as less waste is ferried around, and that would be better for our country and our planet.
	I was delighted that the respected environmental waste management consultancy, Eunomia, which has previously advised Cornwall council, looked recently at the council’s plans and decided that savings could be made. Those savings are not insignificant. It suggests that potentially £320 million of savings can be delivered to taxpayers in Cornwall if the council revisits its waste strategy. It makes the point that the contract is outdated and not fit for purpose, that it no longer fits the overall policy context of either the UK Government or our European counterparts, that the PFI credits are poor value for money, and that with some simple changes Cornwall can find a different solution that better meets its needs.
	Cornwall currently recycles just 37% of its waste and has no real plans to improve that rate. Recycling rates cannot be improved while trying to feed an incinerator that is ever-hungry for material to burn. The best local authorities now recycle more than 60%, and recycling alone could deliver £12 million-worth of savings a year to the council. Indeed, if we went as far as Surrey county council, which is hitting a 70% target, there is potential for still more significant savings. Eunomia reports that the PFI contract that Cornwall council agreed with the previous Government is outdated and not fit for purpose, and that savings can be made there too.
	None of this comes at a time of plenty. We know only too well in this House that local authorities face a difficult financial environment. We know from the representations that we all receive from our constituents that the money that could be saved—the £320 million
	that Cornwall council is throwing away—could be better used to help to meet people’s needs in their day-to-day existence.
	Perhaps I can put it best by leaving it to the director of Eunomia, who said:
	“Cornwall used to lead the recycling league, but now languishes in the bottom 25% of local authorities. In the 15 years since the PFI plan was hatched, the world of waste has moved on and far better alternatives now exist. Our analysis shows that the PFI contract is a very expensive way to ensure that Cornwall continues its poor environmental performance on waste for decades to come.”
	I urge the Minister to get our right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury to look at this issue on a value-for-money basis. We are in the last-chance saloon, but it is not too late.

Gareth Thomas: I wish to raise two very different issues.
	First, Marlborough and Vaughan schools—both excellent schools in my constituency—are in urgent need of rebuilding. They were built in the 1960s as temporary schools. They have problems with asbestos and other serious defects. Given Harrow’s growing population of young families, both schools also need to expand to become three-form entry schools. The council wrote to the chief executive of the Education Funding Agency last July to propose a financial agreement involving funding provided through the priority school building programme and Harrow’s share of the basic needs allocation. I hope that the Deputy Leader of the House will use his influence, at the very least to speed up a response to Harrow council’s letter to the EFA—one containing, I trust, positive news.
	Secondly, I hope that the Competition Commission will investigate the funding of premiership rugby teams. Together with the Rugby Football Union, Premiership Rugby is the body that distributes funding to England’s top rugby clubs. It does so on an uneven and unfair basis. I understand that London Welsh rugby club received some £1.4 million from Premiership Rugby to help to fund players’ salaries, while other premiership clubs—notably the so-called founder clubs, such as Sale, Bath, Leicester and Gloucester—receive some £3.5 million a season. Indeed, figures I have seen for January suggest that Worcester, London Irish and Sale all received about three times the funding that London Welsh received. Given that they are London Welsh’s rivals for the relegation place, this hardly suggests that a fair contest is being played out. Indeed, bizarrely, recently relegated Newcastle also appears to have received three times more funding in January than London Welsh, while Bristol and Leeds, which were relegated some time ago, received almost double the funding that London Welsh received in January.
	In short, there is a clear bias in how funding is distributed against teams promoted to the premiership. The funding arrangements have all the appearance of a cartel. They make it extremely difficult for newly promoted teams to survive or thrive. To their credit, Exeter and Worcester have done so, but the vast majority of promoted clubs struggle to survive beyond a season or two. I have therefore written to the Office of Fair Trading today asking it to request an investigation by the Competition Commission into the funding of rugby clubs. I hope
	that the Deputy Leader of the House will speak to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and encourage them to use their influence to support such an investigation.
	There is, too, the fiasco of the five points deducted for messing up the registration paperwork of the London Welsh scrum half, Tyson Keats, even though no one disputes his entitlement to seek employment in the UK, his eligibility to seek work as a professional rugby player or indeed—should the call come—his eligibility to play for England. I very much regret today’s decision to turn down London Welsh’s appeal against this grim five-point deduction. Quite why the crime is so severe that it should merit such a huge penalty, when other clubs making similar mistakes have not been hit so hard, is frankly difficult to fathom. Exeter fielded an extra overseas player in one of its matches last season and was hit with only a two-point fine. Leicester fielded Manu Tuilagi some seasons ago, despite his effectively being an illegal immigrant. The club was not penalised any points at all. One would think there would be some expectation by the RFU that Leicester would have checked his status; instead, the RFU rallied round to help him to get his status resolved.
	The premiership should surely be a genuine competition in which clubs battle it out on a level playing field. At the moment, sadly, a newly promoted team first has to climb a mountain to get to the playing field and is then expected to play with one hand tied behind its back. It is time that the funding of premiership rugby clubs became much more transparent and that newly promoted teams received appropriate funding.

Priti Patel: Following last week’s Budget debate, I welcome today’s opportunity to highlight some key business-related issues affecting my constituency and my constituents.
	The House will be well aware that Essex is a county of entrepreneurs, as there are many successful small businesses. That is why the first item on my list is Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, which continues to act as a barrier to businesses and many small firms in my constituency. To put this into some kind of context, HMRC has spent over 10 years relentlessly pursuing and seeking to punish my constituent, Mr Philip Wright. His case relates to a complex issue surrounding tax paid in the construction industry. Despite Mr Wright losing his business, being unwell and being of very limited means and having previously won an initial court hearing, HMRC continues to drag this case on, persecuting my constituent. HMRC has made many errors, yet it seems to be determined to secure a precedent-setting victory over Mr Wright at a further court hearing later this year.
	This case shows how HMRC has targeted its efforts on the defenceless and on easy targets, while letting larger firms off the hook. It also shows once again how inept HMRC has been. My constituent had built up his own business and spent years doing the right thing. It is about time that HMRC did the right thing. I urge the Government, and particularly the Treasury Minister responsible for HMRC, to leave Mr Wright in peace.
	Today is quite a significant day, as we have to ask ourselves whether the official who presided over so many failures at the UK Border Agency is the right person to fix HMRC, with all its backlog of cases and problems.
	The next business example from my constituency highlights problems with the Valuation Office Agency. The VOA, as it is fondly known, is an executive agency of HMRC, and it has spent the past three years sitting on a firm’s business rate re-evaluation appeal. In June 2010, the business requested a reduction on the basis that the rateable value applied was
	“incorrect, excessive, contrary to law and a disproportionate reflection on the change in rental values in the locality”.
	The VOA has sat on its hands for three years and done nothing. This is yet another example of bureaucracy not understanding how businesses operate in the real world, as a result of which I understand about 250,000 further appeals in similar instances are outstanding. I urge Ministers to take action to end this bureaucratic shambles and to press the VOA to get its act together.
	Last week’s Budget has been positively welcomed by business, which is why I urge Ministers and the Government to press local councils to unleash local businesses from business rates and to tell local authorities to use their new powers to reduce rates and take a more flexible approach to local business taxation. My constituent, Duncan Clark, is an outstanding local entrepreneur who converted a redundant out-house building into a cookery school, creating two full-time jobs. He has taken a risk to set up that business and has a great “can do” attitude—the type of attitude that this country needs to grow into a more prosperous future. He should be congratulated on what he is doing; instead, of course, he faces a £6,000 bill for his rates. I hope that the Government will urge local councils to use their powers over business rates to foster a competitive spirit of business enterprise in this environment. That would help start-ups and help business men such as Mr Clark.
	Many of the problems that I have highlighted demonstrate that the public sector needs to have a greater understanding and appreciation of the private sector. If those public bodies engaged more constructively with the private sector, they would enhance their own understanding. A great example of that happened in Witham town, when Essex county council listened to a body called Witham Industrial Watch, whose business members monitor criminal activity on our industrial sites. The county council was on the verge of taking away the street lighting on the industrial estate, but Witham Industrial Watch made a persuasive case to the council. I pay tribute to the council and to the cabinet member for highways for realising that it made business sense to work with Witham Industrial Watch to get the right outcome.
	I look forward to hearing the Government’s response. Let me take this opportunity to wish you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and all the staff of the House a very pleasant Easter recess.

George Galloway: The world is still divided, as we know. The plight of poor children in that divided world preoccupies tens of thousands of the finest of our citizens. The proximate cause of my
	applying to speak in this debate, for which I am grateful, was a visit that I had from campaigners from religious organisations and others from Bradford university. The campaign is based around the organisation Enough Food For Everyone If, which will have lobbied most hon. Members in the run-up to the Budget, seeking an important relief for poor children in poor countries. Sadly, the Government, on that occasion at least, failed to rise to that challenge. It is my hope that that campaign can continue and that the Government will take on board its demand to introduce some requirement on British companies operating in poor countries.
	In parenthesis, every 45 seconds—the length of time I have been speaking for—a child in Africa dies of malaria, let alone all the other ailments that kill so many children in poor countries. In the world as a whole, 110 million children under 10 go to work instead of school. For those children, there is no Easter, Christmas or holiday. There are none of the basic comforts that we wish for our own children. Yet in the midst of that, we discover, contemporaneously, that many British corporations and companies, some of them well known, are not only operating in those poor countries to take advantage of the very low wages that workers labour for, but doing their best in those poor countries to avoid, even evade, the minimal rates of taxation that those countries require from them. Therefore, that campaign is asking for something like the disclosure of tax-avoidance scheme that will be applied to British companies under the Finance Bill to force them to disclose the tax-avoidance schemes in which they are involved in poor countries.
	Of course, child poverty is on the march in our own country, too. Yesterday, I had a brief moment with you, Mr Deputy Speaker, to allude to some of the child poverty in my constituency, which has the second highest child poverty and the second highest child mortality in the entire country. I know that I will not melt the hearts of the Government on that point, so I want to raise a practical point with them that, even in their own terms, is an anomaly. More than 10,000 children in Bradford are not receiving free school meals but are officially under the poverty line. The reason is that their parents are working and receiving working families tax credit. They are officially poor, officially below the poverty line, but cannot get free school meals. However, if their parents gave up their jobs, they would immediately be eligible for free school meals.
	How can that conceivably fit with the Government’s oft-claimed intention to try to encourage the unemployed into work and to help the working poor? According to the Children’s Society, in one city alone—Bradford—more than 10,000 children are living under the poverty line but are not receiving free school meals. Therefore, they are likely to go an entire day without proper nutrition.
	I would like the Deputy Leader of the House to explain to me, in writing, at least, how this anomaly can be tolerated. Why not give the working poor at least the same break that we give the unemployed, by giving their poor children something to eat at lunchtime?

Stewart Jackson: Easter is one of the most important Christian festivals and as we speak, across the world, particularly in the Punjab in Pakistan, Christians are being systematically traduced,
	attacked, tortured, imprisoned and even killed. The Centre for Legal Aid Assistance & Settlement said in a recent letter to me:
	“The ongoing abuse of blasphemy laws against Christians in Pakistan is a violation of their human rights and the laws themselves are in direct contravention of various human rights charters. Pakistani Christians are accused of blasphemy to settle personal scores and without being given the chance to prove their innocence are locked up in jails.”
	If the UK’s soft power means anything, it means exercising influence and withdrawing funds if necessary, to make sure the Pakistani Government know that this is completely unacceptable.
	The House will know that in October 2011, I led a debate in Westminster Hall on Tourette’s syndrome, an inherited neurological condition that affects children from the age of six or seven. Many of those children are not well educated because they struggle to keep their tics under control and end up being excluded and in the criminal justice system. I remain unconvinced that the new NHS and education reforms take account of children who desperately need to have their issues addressed. I hope the NHS Commissioning Board looks at that.
	The House will also remember that during a recent Prime Minister’s Question Time, I raised the issue of the fortification of basic foodstuffs with folic acid, particularly for women of child-bearing age. Many countries across the world have done so, and although they have not eliminated the dreadful, tragic conditions of hydrocephalus and spina bifida, they have reduced their incidence. It is my great good fortune to represent the city of Peterborough, in which the Shine charity, formerly the Association for Spina Bifida and Hydrocephalus, is based. It gives help, support and guidance to children affected by spina bifida and their parents. I remain hopeful that the Government will work with the Food Standards Agency—the Department of Health will work with others—to do the right thing and fortify foodstuffs such as bread and flour with folic acid to prevent these terrible conditions.
	Turning to the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel), I will not dwell too much on the Budget, other than to say that I was disappointed that, although we could find time for something was not in the manifesto and the coalition agreement, such as same-sex marriage, we could not do so for something that was, such as a marriage tax break. Senior members of my party, including the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, have said that that will happen under this Government, and I sincerely hope they are as good as their word.
	Representing as I do the city of Peterborough, in which the headquarters of Thomas Cook is located, I was disappointed that the Chancellor also avoided the issue of air passenger duty, but I remain ever hopeful that that will change.
	On a more positive note, philanthropy and the voluntary and community sector in my wonderful constituency, which I have had the good fortune to represent for eight years, is thriving. The Peterborough cathedral “900” appeal, which is seeking to raise millions of pounds from business and others for a heritage and education centre and a centre of excellence for English choral music to celebrate 900 years of a Christian settlement on the banks of the River Nene—an abbey, and then a cathedral—is doing well. Of course, something very
	dear to my heart is the Sue Ryder hospice at Thorpe Hall. A grade I listed building which was the home of Oliver St John—Oliver Cromwell’s money man—it is no longer fit for purpose as a hospice. The fundraising committee, of which I was a member for five years, is raising money for a purpose-built £6 million 22-bedroom hospice on the site. We desperately need the funds for that and good work is being done. So my city is generous and it is raising money for good causes.
	May I end by wishing all hon. Members, you, Mr Deputy Speaker, the Speaker, the Chairman of Ways and Means and all staff a happy, peaceful and restful Easter recess?

Fiona O'Donnell: May I begin by apologising to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, the House and the Deputy Leader of the House for that fact that I will not be able to stay for the duration of the debate? I congratulate the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr Jackson) on his contribution, as he took the opportunity to raise a kaleidoscope of issues. I also congratulate you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and the Backbench Business Committee on this excellent initiative that I am taking advantage of for the first time. Although I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman on tax breaks for married couples, I hope that he would extend them to same-sex couples who choose to marry.
	Such great issues of human rights have been raised by the hon. Gentleman and by the hon. Member for Bradford West (George Galloway), who discussed child poverty, a shameful and deepening scar on this country. However, I wish to be a little more parochial and concentrate on issues closer to home. This may feel like groundhog day to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, as I spoke about the future of Cockenzie power station in yesterday’s Budget debate, but it is an issue of real importance to my constituency.
	Cockenzie’s coal-fired power station closed on Friday 15 March, after 45 years of electricity generation which powered approximately 1 million homes every year during the station’s lifetime. Some 10,000 people have been employed there during its lifetime, through construction and generation. In some cases, three generations of families have been involved in the plant. It was a sad and emotional day when we saw those grown men in their hard hats having soft hearts about the closure of such an important part of East Lothian’s history, which has made such a great contribution to its economy. For many, including me, as I frequently fly into Edinburgh airport, its twin chimney stacks are the place that marks home.
	I wish to praise ScottishPower, which has a good record in managing such closures. I praise the way in which it has worked with the trade unions in the workplace and with individual employees to ensure that there have been no compulsory redundancies. Many employees are moving to other stations, while others have opted for retirement or severance voluntarily. Having said that, this was still a tough day for East Lothian, as Cockenzie now lies like a sleeping giant, waiting for a decision from this Government.
	There has been uncertainty about the future of Cockenzie for some time, and I do not lay this all at the door of this Government; the previous administration in East
	Lothian council, a Scottish National party-Lib Dem coalition, opposed planning permission for the plant’s conversion to gas. Fortunately, that decision was overturned by Scottish Ministers, who are also from the SNP—indecision is not limited to those on the Government Benches. Thankfully, we have a new administration in East Lothian council, a Labour-Conservative coalition—that is how democracy can be at times. It results from the single transferable vote, and I do not think it is a coalition we will ever see replicated in this place.
	ScottishPower is calling for clarity on a capacity mechanism for thermal generation in the Energy Bill. Speaking at the annual meeting of the shareholders of Iberdrola—the Spanish owner of ScottishPower—its chief executive officer, Mr Galan, said that ScottishPower would increase its planned UK spend of £10 billion by £3 billion to build new gas-fired power stations, but uncertainty caused by market conditions and a lack of clarity from the UK Government was holding back that further investment. Some of that money could be used to refurbish the station at Cockenzie, creating 1,000 construction jobs in my constituency in the process and with further knock-on benefits to the local economy. When completed, it would be a welcome source of skilled jobs and apprenticeships for young people in my constituency. I urge the Deputy Leader of the House to take that message back to the Department of Energy and Climate Change. This is an opportunity for investment in the UK and in my constituency to create jobs and to keep the lights on.

Richard Graham: Not long ago, a Slovak national, Mr Peter Pavlisin, badly beat up his pregnant Gloucester girlfriend, Natasha Motala, threatened her with death and had to be subdued by several policemen. He was sentenced to four years in prison in the Gloucester Crown court and the judge revealed during sentencing that during Mr Pavlisin’s four years in the UK he had been convicted of 14 offences from 21 charges. When I read that in our local paper, The Citizen, my immediate reaction was relief for my constituent Natasha, who had given birth safely, and for my other constituents, as the criminal would be off the streets of Gloucester. There was something missing, however. Where was the instruction to the courts to deport the prisoner at the end of his sentence?
	I rang the judge and he explained that judges have the authority to deport non-EU nationals but not EU nationals. That can only be decided by the Home Secretary. I did more research, and I discovered that if an EU national is sentenced to more than two years, or 12 months for certain crimes, the National Offender Management Service is supposed to make recommendations to the Home Secretary on deportation some months before that sentence is over. That system is unsatisfactory in several ways. First, the victims, the court, the media and the community are unaware of it. No one in Gloucester knows that Mr Pavlisin should be deported in due course. As the judge is silent on the issue—indeed, judges have to be—the implication is that he will not be deported and will emerge with a strong likelihood of extending his frequent appearances in our courts.
	Secondly, there is no clear responsibility for action, no audit trail and no measurement of the Ministry of Justice’s ability to ensure that dangerous EU nationals
	are deported at the end of their sentences. Thirdly, as the law allows for deportation but the process does not highlight it, my constituents and everyone else’s are unlikely to have confidence in the system.
	That gap in the process could, I believe, be fixed relatively simply through an amendment to the UK Borders Act 2007 and a memorandum of conviction that would require judges to say when the sentence for any EU national is of a length or severity that obliges NOMS to consider recommending deportation to the Home Secretary well ahead of the completion of the sentence. That would spell out to everyone, including EU nationals, an important likely consequence of serious crime in our country. It would remind everyone that we decide who is deported and who is not, wherever they come from, and give us all more confidence in the process of law.
	Let me be clear: this is not about bashing the EU or stoking xenophobic paranoia. Immigrants to Gloucester, from Roman legionaries to Norman monks, Jamaican nurses, Asian engineers, Polish makers of shirts and many others besides, including some great European rugby players, have contributed hugely to our city. We have thrived on immigration but not on foreign criminals. This is about the safety of my constituents and justice for all our constituents and it is a plea for more certainty and rigour in the process of justice. I am sure that Ministers in both the Ministry of Justice and the Home Department share my concerns and I hope that they will act to ensure that justice is done and is seen to be done and that all foreign criminals will be deported when they deserve to be.
	Let me take this opportunity to wish you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and everyone in this House a happy Easter.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Lindsay Hoyle: On her birthday, I call Barbara Keeley.

Barbara Keeley: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.
	I want to take this opportunity to talk about sport and fitness for women and girls. I spoke about it during the debate on international women’s day last year and from that debate we managed to get cross-party agreement to support the development of a new all-party group on women’s sport and fitness. We launched it, it is supported by the Women’s Sport and Fitness Foundation and we have had some great meetings. Our first meeting was with the presenter and sports commentator Clare Balding and the Olympic rowing gold medallist Kath Grainger, and most recently we have had a meeting with the Paralympian Martine Wright, who survived the 7/7 bombings and went on to compete in the Paralympics, and Claire Lomas, who was the first paraplegic to complete the London marathon, doing so in 17 days walking in a robotic suit.
	It was great to listen to those inspirational women from those different sports. It is needed, because women’s sport faces a crisis in media coverage and lack of sponsorship. Outside Olympic years, women’s sport receives less than 5% of the total sport print coverage, and even then, unsurprisingly, women’s sport receives only 0.5%
	of the total sponsorship income. There was the recent case of the England women’s football team being offered a salary increase from £16,000 to £18,000 a year. They eventually settled on a contract of £20,000 a year. In the same week, the Arsenal football player Theo Walcott signed for £100,000 a week. I know that we have some talented girls and young women playing football now, and the difference in reward levels for women’s football must be offputting for those talented enough to seek a professional career.
	Appropriately enough for a debate at this time of year, it is a case of the chicken and the egg. More media coverage is needed to provide girls and young women with positive role models in sport, and that would encourage participation and future achievement, but media coverage is elusive and without it we do not get the sponsorship and salaries remain low.
	Let me turn quickly to school sport, because we currently have a crisis of activity levels among children, especially girls, with just 16% of girls and young women reaching the recommended levels of activity by the time they leave primary school, compared with 29% of boys, and only 12% of 14-year-olds are active enough to benefit their health. In fact, girls leave school only half as likely to meet the recommended activity levels of boys, and nearly a third of 16-year-olds do no physical activity at all.
	In that context, the Government’s announcement of £150 million for primary school sport is welcome, but I have some questions about the funding. How will Ministers ensure that the investment helps to close the gender gap in activity levels in primary schools? Do they have any plans to provide similar, much needed support in secondary schools, where sport among girls really drops away? How do Ministers plan to measure the success of the investment, given that there is no comprehensive annual measurement of children’s activity levels in sport? The status quo is that 51% of girls say that school sport and physical education actually puts them off being active, and they are only half as likely as boys to meet the recommended activity levels.
	I commend the Rugby Football Union for its All Schools programme. At a recent event in the House, I met three young women who had taken up playing rugby at school and at a local club. The RFU has done a great job in enthusing teachers and coaches, who in turn enthuse and inspire young women, such as the three I met. I also congratulate FC United of Manchester on commemorating international women’s day by holding events to celebrate women in football, including an event called “A woman’s place is at the match”. Its women’s team was awarded Manchester Football Association’s “Team of the Month” award. They also won a recent semi-final to win through to the league cup final against Manchester City’s women’s team. I commend them and all women and girls working to break down barriers in women’s sport.
	Finally, I would like to give the customary thanks to all staff of the House. I particularly want to thank Noeleen and the staff of the Tea Room, who I think do a wonderful job, the Hansard reporters, to whom I think we should all be very grateful, and you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I wish all a happy Easter. I will end by wishing a happy birthday to my hon. Friends the Members for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) and for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood) and my right hon. Friend the
	Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden). I do not know whether any Government Members have birthdays today, but if they do I wish then a happy birthday, too.

Fiona Bruce: In fact, today is also my birthday. I am grateful for the opportunity, on this jolly occasion, to draw the House’s attention to proposals for a Congleton link road that would run from Sandbach road to the west of the town, past the north of the town centre and on to Macclesfield road to the east. The potential benefits have been excellently summed up in an appropriately titled document, “The key to unlocking Cheshire East: Securing jobs and a future for the local economy”, which has been compiled by a forward thinking partnership of Congleton business people and the East Cheshire chamber of commerce, collectively called the Link2Prosperity group—L2P.
	The road would improve connectivity right across east Cheshire by improving links to Manchester airport, the M60 and the M6, the latter being just 10 minutes away at Sandbach, junction 17, in my constituency. It would also improve connectivity to the rail network, particularly the inter-city connection at Crewe, and would help alleviate heavy traffic problems that the people of Holmes Chapel have endured for 40 years.

David Rutley: On my hon. Friend’s birthday, she is making a characteristically powerful speech. I agree wholeheartedly that the Congleton link road will be vital in improving connectivity in east Cheshire and to stimulate economic growth. Does she agree that it is also important to have a similar road—the Poynton-Woodford relief road—to help to improve connectivity in the north of our borough?

Fiona Bruce: I absolutely do agree. It is interesting to note that both these roads are priorities in Cheshire East council’s draft development strategy.
	The Congleton link road would reduce the daily traffic congestion in the centre of Congleton that impedes businesses, residents and school pupils and has been described by Siemens, the town’s biggest employer, as “chronic”. It would also reduce the consequential high levels of nitrous oxide at pollution hot spots in the town.
	The benefits of this road involve far more than traffic improvements alone. Its route north of the town would open up much-improved access to industrial and business park sites that are small, land-locked, in poor condition and under-occupied, which means that existing businesses looking to expand are being forced to relocate. Moreover, the sites offer minimal opportunities for inward investment by new businesses. All this could radically change with the investment in these sites that improved connectivity both locally and regionally would justify. The benefits of opening them up are cited not only in the L2P document but in Cheshire East council’s draft development strategy, which states in its foreword that the council has
	“a jobs-led development strategy, supported by improved connectivity through sustainable infrastructure such as the…Congleton Link Road”.
	It goes on to say that the strategy
	“seeks to promote the right conditions for jobs growth—by boosting the delivery of existing major employment sites, improving connectivity and identifying new areas for future investment and expansion.”
	The Congleton link road will do just that.
	Let me give a case study. The L2P document talks about Senior Aerospace Bird Bellows, which is based at Radnor Park estate, one of the business sites to the north of Congleton. SABB manufactures key aircraft components, and it is Congleton’s second largest employer. Key visitors to SABB include Boeing, Airbus and Rolls-Royce. Sadly, as the L2P document states, the condition of Radnor Park estate does not reflect its status as the home of a high-tech, world-class manufacturer. SABB is set to grow; indeed, 100 jobs are about to be attracted to the company very soon. However, if it is to remain in Congleton, it is crucial that Radnor Park estate is improved. Improvements to the Radnor Park site, and indeed to other business sites in the area, could provide knock-on benefits in terms of attracting additional new businesses and much-needed employment opportunities, particularly for young people, that cannot be overestimated. That is why over 60 local companies listed in the L2P document support the link road proposal, including the town’s biggest employer, Siemens, which says that
	“this new artery has the potential to pump new levels of economic activity into this town.”
	The proposals are also supported by Congleton town council, Congleton Partnership and the retail arm of Congleton Business Association, which say that there is a need to focus on contemporaneous support for the town centre’s public realm and retail sector to ensure that that part of the town flourishes, in conjunction with this redevelopment, just as much as the business parks. I believe that with appropriate creative thinking and investment, the town centre will indeed benefit, not only as a result of the improved traffic flow and access to the town centre, but because it will provide a more pleasant shopping and leisure experience, and, one hopes, increased footfall as a result. Other key supporters include Congleton high school, Eaton Bank school and Congleton Town football club, all of which have ambitious aspirations to develop their facilities—something that could be facilitated by the link road development, with its improved connectivity and release of land.
	In association with the link road, there would be additional housing developments. These must be sensitively planned, taking into account the existing communities’ views. That is a very important consideration that we must continually be aware of.
	I ask the Minister to raise this important local proposal with his colleagues in the Department of Transport in the hope that I, and others, will be able to meet Ministers there in the near future to discuss this project in greater detail.

Thomas Docherty: May I join the House in wishing my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) and the hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) a very happy birthday? I will keep my remarks brief because I know that other Members are seeking to catch your eye, Mr Deputy Speaker.
	I am sure that the House has seen the sad news today that Dunfermline Athletic has gone into administration after owing Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs about £130,000. I hope that the Minister can say whether the Government, through HMRC and the Treasury, will be sympathetic to that problem.
	My remarks will concentrate on the Royal Navy’s presence in Scotland. At this time of year, when we are all thinking about spending time with our families, loved ones and friends, we should remember the armed forces personnel of all services who are serving overseas and are apart from their families.
	There have been recent announcements about the British Army lay-down in Scotland and there was a written statement yesterday about the RAF lay-down. Obviously, the Royal Navy plays an important role as well. Not only is Faslane the home of the deterrent; over the coming decade, it will become the home of the Astute class submarines. The hon. Member for Colchester (Sir Bob Russell) and I were up at Faslane just two weeks ago to see the fantastic work that goes on there. About 8,500 personnel will be based there and bring their experience to it. That base is an important source of employment. The Royal Marine base outside Arbroath at Condor is also an important presence in Scotland and it, too, provides jobs.
	The other major site for the Royal Navy is Rosyth dockyard in my constituency, where the Queen Elizabeth class carriers are being assembled. I am sure that Members on both sides of the House will recognise what fantastic pieces of engineering those carriers are. They are 65,000 tonne aircraft carriers that will form the centrepiece of the Royal Navy.
	As the construction of the carriers progresses, the Royal Navy will have to increase its presence at Rosyth. Although there was understandable disappointment in west Fife that the Army would not be coming to Caledonia, I hope that the Minister will confirm that there was an important reason for that, which was that the Royal Navy has an important requirement for Caledonia and the wider west Fife area. I hope that the Minister will elaborate on the number of personnel who may be based there. I understand that at its peak, there may be somewhere north of 500 extra personnel.
	I hope that the Ministry of Defence will meet me and others over the coming weeks to discuss how best we can accommodate those personnel and whether they should all be based inside Caledonia or whether work needs to be done with the council. Fife council has said that it is happy to talk to the MOD about what support it can offer to make them feel welcome.
	I am sure that the Minister will want to confirm that were Scotland to separate from the rest of the United Kingdom, not only would 8,500 jobs be lost at Faslane and the Royal Marines leave Condor, but there would be no future for the Rosyth dockyard. Not only would hundreds of jobs be lost at Caledonia, but the next 50 years of work that are coming to the dockyard would be lost. I would be grateful if the Minister outlined the view of the Royal Navy on the future requirements.
	Finally, Mr Deputy Speaker, may I wish you and the whole House a happy Easter? You are a benevolent boss and have no doubt bought your staff an Easter egg. I am quite sure that the Deputy Leader of the House has bought an Easter egg for Mr Mike Winter, the head of
	office, Ben Sneddon and everybody else who works for him in his office. I am sure that every colleague will ensure that all their staff are looked after at this important time of year.

David Amess: Before the House adjourns for the Easter recess, there are a number of points that I wish to raise.
	A constituent of mine, Katrine Kuzminas, recently sent me a DVD called “Earthlings”. I share her concern about the proposed badger cull.
	Planet Leasing is a car leasing firm in my constituency that does a wonderful job in taking on school leavers to serve internships. In October 2012, it won the employer of the year award and celebrated its sixth birthday on 14 March. I am proud to have it in my constituency.
	Honeywell, which makes switches and lights, is a Fortune 100 company that created many of the sockets that we use, including those at the Olympic games. During my visit to its factory, the topic of carbon monoxide detectors came up. Its particular concern is that, when a house is draught-proofed, the risk of carbon monoxide poisoning increases. Under the green deal, we have been promised that carbon monoxide detectors will be fitted as a legal requirement. I hope that that will happen.
	Hospitals do a marvellous job, but do not seem to work at the weekends. Recently, my 92-year-old aunt was in hospital for a day. She returned home, but no one was there to look after her. She was standing on the side of the road, fell down and broke her hip. It was a disaster.
	Jill Allen-King, a blind constituent of mine, has raised an important issue—the eligibility criteria for the higher rate of the mobility component part of disability allowance. Those who reach 65 lose that benefit, which seems extraordinary.
	Essex county bowling club is currently £26,000 worse off, because it has been refused re-admittance to the community amateur sports club. As a result, it has not received the tax relief that it was previously given. I think the Inland Revenue needs to be more helpful.
	The East of England ambulance service is struggling with several difficulties. I have heard first-hand accounts of how one addict called an ambulance nine times in one day. As of 2010, ambulance calls have been increasing at a rate of 6.5% each year. Considering that each call costs £200, it is an absolute disgrace that the service is being abused.
	Gas prices are far too high. I was proud to introduce the Warm Homes and Energy Conservation Act 2000. I hope that the Energy Bill will deal with current high gas prices.
	Small claims courts give our constituents a wonderful opportunity of getting redress relatively cheaply, but we need to consider carefully how they are financed and how they operate.
	Whistleblowers seem to be the flavour of the month. In 1998, I publicly defended in the House a lady called Sharon Tattoo, but the NHS establishment of the day won, and the chairman of the health trust who defended her who was forced to resign. It was an absolute disgrace. I hope that Health Ministers will look at that case again.
	Spinnaker, led by Phil Parry, is a wonderful company in my constituency specialising in shipping, maritime and marine world recruitment. It has an exemplary customer relations record and should be congratulated on all the work that it does at home and abroad.
	A constituent of mine has written to me. He is 38 and his wife has been diagnosed with terminal cancer. Unbelievably, bereavement allowance only operates from the age of 45. That needs to be changed. Another constituent of mine has a brother, Abid, who is a British national sentenced to 25 years imprisonment in Pakistan for supposedly murdering his father. The case details are an absolute disgrace, and I call on the Foreign Secretary to do something very quickly.
	I end with Southend. It is clear to me that everyone is getting behind Southend’s bid to be city of culture in 2017. Southend United are playing in the cup final on 7 April. I hope that they win. I wish everyone a very happy Easter, including you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and particularly José and Fedel, who work in the gift shop down below and who are retiring after a combined period of 60 years’ service. If anyone wants a destination this year, I can only say that the only way is Essex.

Jim Shannon: It is a pleasure to make a few comments about Ulster Scots culture, on which I am very keen. Last week, I took some of my staff round the House. It was a privilege to show them the history of the place. It reminded me of the pride that we all take in the Chamber. We are a small part of this great place and of the great nation that is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. I am proud to hail from the unparalleled shores of Strangford. I am proud of our rich history and culture. I am proud to be an Ulster Scot.
	I want to highlight the rich cultural links between Northern Ireland and the nations that make up the United Kingdom. Some Members might be unsure about what I mean by “Ulster Scots”. For nearly 400 years, the term has referred to a people, not a place—to the people who migrated from the lowlands of Scotland to Ulster and to the Ulster Scots communities they established across the nine counties.
	The first large wave of permanent migrants were not soldiers or mercenaries but ordinary Scottish families seeking a new life. They were mainly Presbyterian in faith and outlook, and overwhelmingly spoke the Scots language. I understand that they were descended from the Stewarts of the lowlands of Scotland, and there are many people down the Ards peninsula, where I make my home, who can—and have—traced their ancestry back to Scotland and who hold their history very dear.
	Ulster Scots refers not only to those people and their descendents, but also to their heritage and cultural traditions. The lowland Scots brought industry, language, music, sport, religion and myriad traditions to Ulster. Many of those have now become mainstream—not narrow cultural markers, but broad themes in our society. The Ulster Scots folk and the Scots alike have much to gain by strengthening our deep historic ties and understanding the Ulster Scots story.
	Throughout schools in Northern Ireland, the Ulster-Scots Agency is working to instil in our children a pride in their heritage, safe in the knowledge that when we have a good foundation, we can build a sturdy home. One school in my constituency, Derryboy primary school, has an Ulster Scots dance in its PE class—that is something to behold—as well as having after-school clubs in Ulster Scots. We have children who can recite poetry and dance a jig and who understand that to enjoy their history and heritage is not being offensive or bigoted but simply being who they are.
	In Strangford, we have strong link with Ulster Scots. We run programmes in the summer with the Lougheries Historical Society in Newtownards, with individuals reciting poetry at events and children being taught Ulster Scots in schools down the Ards peninsula, at Castle Gardens primary school and Movilla high school in Newtownards. The interest shown by those young people is second to none, and poetry is one of the things that they enjoy.
	I am going to recite one verse—I have spoken to Mr Deputy Speaker about this—from one of those poems: Leevin in Drumlister:
	“I’m leevin in Drumlister
	An’ I’m gettin very oul
	I hae tae wear an Indian bag
	To save mae frae the coul
	Theires naw a man in this toonlan
	Wus claner raired than me,
	But I’m leevin in Drumlister
	In clabber tae the knee.”
	I would love to read all three verses, but I was told I could not, so I will not.
	Hon. Members who may be questioning what links they have with the Ulster Scots all enjoy the benefits of Ulster Scots ingenuity. Hans Sloane from Killyleagh in my Strangford constituency invented milk chocolate. Ladies love chocolate; men love chocolate. I used to love chocolate before I became a diabetic and I can no longer have it. Nevertheless, we have chocolate in our society because of Hans Sloane and Killyleagh.
	More than 7,000 lives have been saved by the Martin-Baker ejection seat, which is now used by more than 90 air forces and navies. The number of lives saved increases by an average of more than three a week—again, ingenuity of the Ulster Scots. James Martin was a famous Ulster Scot who invented that ejection seat, and Frank Pantridge—also an Ulster Scot—developed the world’s mobile defibrillator and became known as the father of emergency medicine. We are doing our bit for society when it comes to inventions.
	Massey-Ferguson tractors—perhaps some hon. Members have one, but if they do not, it was the first tractor and was perfected and built by an Ulster Scot. Twelve American Presidents have been of Ulster Scots heritage. We are a small nation, but we punch well above our weight producing 12 Ulster Scots Presidents with our heritage, history and our nation as best ally.
	Some of the greatest inventions in the world and the funniest poetry is by Ulster Scots, as well as the most beautiful turns of phrase and dance. It is little wonder that I am proud to be an Ulster Scot. I cannot wait to
	see more people from the Chamber today and from outside the House travelling to my constituency to enjoy a rich culture and beautiful scenery.

Jeffrey M Donaldson: I am enjoying my hon. Friend’s contribution, but on a serious note, the 100th anniversary of the first world war will soon be coming up. Will he acknowledge that, during the great war, Ulster Scots played a role with great heroism as part of the wider British Army? One thinks particularly of the battle of the Somme.

Jim Shannon: I thank my right hon. Friend for that intervention. Yes, our heritage is not just cultural but historical. We fought alongside and within the British Army at the battle of the Somme, and we commemorate that contribution of our soldiers every 1 July. The history stories that I was taught as a boy are so important to me and to us as a nation because of our contribution and our heroism and courage. Young boys of 16 and 17 told lies about their age to join the Army and contribute at the battle of the Somme—I was going to say the battle of the Boyne, but that would be going too far back.
	We Ulster Scots are very proud to have beautiful scenery, a rich culture and the warmest of people, who are anxious to welcome others to our heart and heritage. I invite all Members to Strangford to discover our Ulster Scots heritage, and I look forward to seeing them.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 15),
	That, at this day’s sitting, the matters to be raised before the forthcoming adjournment may be proceeded with, though opposed, until 8.00 pm.—(Mr Evennett.)
	Question agreed to.

Mark Williams: I want to address the issue of the mis-selling of interest rate swaps by commercial banks and to ask in particular why tailored business loans—or fixed-rate loans with embedded or hidden swaps—are not included in the Financial Services Authority’s review. This issue took up a whole Back-Bench debate last June and I know that we will return to it.
	The pilots of the FSA’s review into interest rate swaps revealed evidence that up to 90% of products had been mis-sold by commercial banks, but the question is: why is the review not looking at TBLs? Many businesses in my constituency and, I would hazard a guess, across the whole country are affected by them. We need a review of those products if our constituents and business people are to have any chance of redress.
	TBLs are remarkably similar to other interest rate swap products: they involve exorbitant exit fees for the businesses concerned, profits are booked immediately to the banks and there are huge incentives to sell them to customers. When the all-party group on interest rate swap mis-selling, ably chaired by the hon. Member for Aberconwy (Guto Bebb), met last December, Clive Adamson of the FSA told us:
	“If there is no understanding of break costs given to the customer and if there was a poor disclosure of exit cost, then it was highly likely that there was a mis-sale”.
	Yet on the grounds of a mere technicality, TBLs, which are fixed-rate loans, will not be included in the FSA review. That is unjust nonsense.
	I can best illustrate that point by referring to two businesses in Aberystwyth in my Ceredigion constituency. First, Huw and Jackie Roberts of Minhafan Estates Property Development took out a £750,000 quaintly named vanilla swap over 10 years, which Barclays bank referred to as a “simple swap”. The breakage clause to get out of that agreement is £155,000 and their business is included in the FSA review. Secondly, the Beechey family who run the Black Lion pub in Aberystwyth took out a £750,000 fixed-rate loan—a TBL with embedded swap—over 15 years with Clydesdale and Yorkshire bank. Their breakage fees are £200,000, but the business is not included in the review. Both of those businesses are in the same constituency and suffering severe financial distress, yet one is in the review and the other is not. Both were involved in a trade call with an FSA-regulated derivatives expert when the hedging product was sold.
	For 12 years the FSA has worked on the assumption of a principle-based system of regulation. The results of January’s pilots found that poor disclosure of break costs was one of the most significant issues in assessing compliance. However, banks such as Clydesdale and Yorkshire are telling customers that they have no legal or regulatory obligation to inform customers who have been sold a fixed-rate and that they have no redress
	whatsoever. If a feature is worthy of regulation when it is contained in one product, why is it not worthy of regulation when contained and concealed in another?
	In Ceredigion there are well over 30 types of the Clydesdale and Yorkshire fixed-rate loan with hidden swap, and that is in one community alone. Hotels, pubs, lucrative shops and farms are being targeted by the banks. The stories are heartbreaking. These toxic loans mean that hitherto successful businesses are burdened with unmanageable interest rates. Owners are unable to exit the arrangements because of extortionate breakage penalties of between 20% and 40%.
	What about the consequences? Job losses resulting from trading for four years in a severe economic situation while locked into an inappropriate product—a product that has sucked out every surplus the business has generated, preventing development and the engagement of staff and precipitating redundancies—are forcing people in my constituency on to benefits.
	The challenge for the Government is to put all pressure imaginable on the FSA and the successor organisation to ensure that such embedded products are considered part of the review, so that the growing number of business affected have the redress and justice I believe they deserve. I hope my right hon. Friend the Deputy Leader of the House answers favourably.

Bob Blackman: It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Ceredigion (Mr Williams), with whom I shared a trip to Nigeria last year, and to participate in the David Amess Adjournment debate. We heard my hon. Friend’s tour de force earlier, but I will concentrate on one subject.
	I am always pleased to reassure my constituents that Harrow has one of the lowest crime rates in London. In fact, we are the second-safest borough in London for crime. For the past three years, crime has come down overall. However, I first got involved in dealing with knife crime when two savage incidents occurred in my constituency. To my horror, knife crime in Harrow has increased by 16% in the past two years. The overall crime figures show a reduction, and we see ourselves as a low-level borough for crime, including knife crime, but that increase prompted me to look at the wider figures in the country as well as in London.
	Nationally, the knife crime figures are going in the right direction—they show that knife crime fell by 15% in the past three years, with the number of crimes coming down to around 30,000. However, in London in the comparable period, knife crime has increased by 15%. London accounts for nearly half of all knife crime committed in England and Wales, which is a serious concern.
	The Government have seen fit to address that trend in the new tougher sentencing regime introduced as part of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, which created the offence of aggravated knife possession—it is now an offence to threaten or endanger others with a knife or offensive weapon. The offence carries an automatic custodial sentence of six months for over 18s. I was one of a number of MPs who supported my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield
	North (Nick de Bois), who tabled an amendment to insist on an automatic custodial sentence of four months for 16 and 17-year-olds.
	The offence came into operation only on 3 December 2012, so we are unable fully to judge its effectiveness yet. However, we can say that this is not the end of the fight against knife crime, but only the beginning. We need to look at the recently released figures to know the trend, particularly the figures on knife possession—if people do not carry knives in the first place, they will not commit knife crime. In 2012, nearly a quarter of the offensive weapon possession offences were committed by repeat offenders—I would add that they repeated the same offence. Of 4,000 individuals, 43% escaped a custodial sentence. Forty-four per cent. of those offenders had three or more previous convictions, but also escaped a custodial sentence. Even more gallingly, 5% of repeat offenders escaped with nothing more than a caution. Both the rates of reoffending and the sentences show that something is going wrong.
	Across London, 62% of knife crime is accounted for by personal robberies involving a knife. Knives are used primarily as a weapon of threat, and in only a small number of cases is someone injured, but 40% of homicides in England and Wales involve a knife. That leads to the utterly wrong view that possession is the least dangerous aspect of knife crime, and therefore unimportant. We must address that. An attitude needs to be introduced in this country by which knife possession is completely and utterly unacceptable. If we allow repeat offenders to escape with nothing but a caution, that attitude will not come about. If we had such an attitude, we would not allow nearly half of all repeat offenders to escape prison.
	I believe that possession of a knife or offensive weapon needs to be taken much more seriously, which is why I call on Ministers to assess whether it would be appropriate to introduce a two-strikes policy, by which anyone found in possession of a knife who has a previous conviction for a knife-related offence should receive an automatic custodial sentence. That would make it clear, in the strongest terms, that the Government stand against knife crime and are prepared to challenge its root causes.
	This is holy week, when Christians celebrate Easter, Jews commemorate the Passover and the deliverance from Egypt, and Hindus celebrate Holi. I wish people of all religions a very happy holy week.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call Sir Bob Russell, on his birthday.

Bob Russell: My birthday is on Sunday.
	I draw the House’s attention to what I said in the pre-Christmas recess debate on 20 December at columns 1082 to 1085, with reference to the scandalous financial transactions made by the then leader of Essex county council, courtesy of the public purse. It is estimated that, from 2002 to January 2010, he spent nearly £450,000, an average of £1,000 a week, through credit card payments. It is ludicrous for anyone to say that those payments
	were for the benefit of the council taxpayers of Essex, who were paying for his life of Riley, including 62 overseas visits in five years.
	Official documents detail every item of his expenditure, totalling £287,000, from March 2005 to January 2010. Records for the previous three years, according to Essex county council, are not available. I would be surprised if the council did not have bank statements which would reveal the total expenditure claimed by the leader of the council via the credit card the council issued to him even if the details are not on file. I ended my speech by saying:
	“Only a full independent inquiry into the stewardship of the council from 2002 to 2010 will serve to draw a line under this most disgraceful period since Essex county council was established in 1889.”—[Official Report, 20 December 2012; Vol. 555, c. 1085.]
	I regret to inform the House that Essex county council has refused to implement an independent public inquiry.
	The Tory leadership is in denial. No amount of whitewash of county hall will prevent the stains of financial chicanery from remaining visible for all to see. Sadly, the situation can now be revealed to be even worse than I told the House three months ago. Last week it was revealed that council employees working directly to the leader of the council were also milking the system. County council staff, working in what it is now obvious was a party political manner for the leader of the council, had their own council-issued credit card and ran up bills of their own totalling £70,000, which would appear in every respect to have been for the benefit of the political career and aspirations of the council leader rather than for the people of Essex. Let me give one example.
	The leader of the council was accompanied to the 2009 Conservative party conference by council staff. That in itself is in breach of the local government code of conduct: council staff should not be engaged in party political activities. They certainly should not be attending party conferences, and they should most certainly not expect the council taxpayers of Essex to pick up the bill. In this case, it came to £5,080.98. A breakdown includes not just accommodation and meals but £248 for wine at a reception. This has so outraged the distinguished political commentator Mr Simon Heffer that in his column in the Daily Mail last Saturday he wrote:
	“Tory-controlled Essex County Council let its former Leader off the hook by failing to pursue him over a £286,000 credit card bill he racked up while flying around the world with cronies and dining in style.”
	That was outrageous enough, considering that the former council leader was jailed for fiddling his expenses, but it turns out that the council also paid this crook’s £4,600 Westminster bar bills, and its audit committee has learnt that his staff claimed £70,000 for trips abroad, hotels, restaurants and hiring clothes to attend Ascot. I am an Essex ratepayer and I want to know who sanctioned this wicked waste of money and what steps will be taken to reclaim it.
	Mr Heffer concluded his article by saying:
	“Meanwhile, no-one in Essex should vote Conservative in the Council elections on May 2.”
	As Essex county council refuses to hand over this financial scandal to an independent investigation, I call on the Government to do so; otherwise, trust in Essex county council will remain at a very low level. To my mind, it is inconceivable that the leader of the council
	acted in the way he did—and for so long—without it being known at the highest level of the council: chief officers and those councillors closest to the leader must, surely, have suspected something was not right. Was he really the only rotten apple in the barrel?
	What of the financial line management? Were suspicions not aroused when details of the credit card were listed? Where was the council’s internal audit? Did they not notice, or were they too afraid to raise concerns? I gather that there was a culture of bullying and intimidation at county hall, but that, surely, would not have applied to the external auditors?
	The total sum involved tops £500,000. The Government must step in and order a full independent inquiry into the financial scandal at Essex county council.

Jeremy Lefroy: The excellent statement this morning by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health on the Government’s response to the Francis report on the Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust shows just how important that inquiry has been and how the findings will help to change the NHS for the better for patients. I particularly welcome the emphasis on zero harm and quality of care, including the proposals for the training of nurses and for a chief inspector of hospitals.
	The recent Care Quality Commission report on Stafford hospital was encouraging too—a hospital that failed so badly has now met the standards expected—and I thank the retiring chief executive Lynn Hill-Tout, staff, governors and board for all that they have done. Yet, just at the moment when the people of Stafford should be emerging from a decade or more of pain and uncertainty, we are faced with another huge challenge. The report to Monitor by the contingency planning team, published at the beginning of this month, recommended the removal of most emergency, acute, maternity and possibly even elective services from the Mid Staffordshire Trust which runs Stafford and Cannock hospitals.
	This puzzles me. Emergency and acute admissions to hospitals in the west midlands are rising sharply and departments are at full stretch. Just last month—February—West Midlands ambulance service reported delays to its vehicles of more than 30 minutes on more than 1,000 occasions at the University Hospital of North Staffordshire. That is not a criticism of that hospital, just a reflection of demand. The proposal, however, is to remove a substantial amount of that capacity, which is already stretched: 300 acute beds at Stafford, in addition to the 250 that have already been lost at UHNS as a result of the new, smaller PFI hospital. In fact, at least 60 have had to be reopened at the old site, as demand is so great.
	The reason given for this is, as always, that if we move care out of hospitals and into the community, the demand for emergency and acute admissions will fall. That is only half the truth. It will fall, but only from the much higher levels it would have reached. Moving care into the community will stop the need to provide much more extra emergency and acute capacity, but it will not allow for substantial reductions in that capacity. This is the flawed assumption under which NHS leaders seem to be working.
	There is a squeeze on emergency and acute tariffs that started under the previous Government. I have raised this issue before and I will continue to do so, because unless it is addressed it will eventually result in dangerously low levels of emergency and acute cover in parts of the UK. It cannot be sensible for trusts that deal in elective work to pile up surpluses while many acute trusts, on which we all depend, struggle to cope with mounting deficits.
	It would be nice to believe that all hospital admissions could be elective—that all work could be programmed to fit into an ordered day—but life is not like that, especially when we have large numbers of people living longer, which I welcome, and then becoming ill suddenly with acute, complex conditions. That is why I firmly believe, as do most of my constituents, that acute district general hospitals have an important role to play. Indeed, if they did not exist, we would probably decide to create them, precisely because they are the best place for the initial treatment of the elderly with complex, acute conditions, who could be close to home and to their loved ones.
	We do of course need to learn the lesson of Mid Staffordshire and other places. Such district general hospitals are usually too small to sustain many of the specialist rotas that are needed, but the solution is not, as is proposed for Stafford, to cram all serious emergency and acute cases into already overstretched neighbours; it is to work closely with those neighbouring trusts—even become part of them—and thus enable clinicians to work across neighbouring sites. This solution has the merit of combining the benefits of scale with providing care close to patients.
	I met Monitor two weeks ago, and I welcome the assurance I was given by the chief executive, Dr David Bennett, that the trust special administrator, shortly to be appointed, will consider options other than those recommended, which are wholly inadequate. Monitor has the chance to show how smaller, acute general hospitals can not only survive but prosper under the wing of a larger trust. If it does that, it will have done the NHS and our country a great service.

Mark Pawsey: It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy), who speaks with such authority on health matters in his constituency.
	Having set up and run a business for 25 years before entering this place, I am always keen to meet businesses in my constituency. Some 18 months ago I arranged to meet a retailer with a new business called Smoke No Smoke, run by the very entrepreneurial Jim Lacey. The business sells e-cigarettes. On my visit I learnt about the product. Its customers are often people seeking to give up smoking, who have come to include a member of my staff. It was through his contacts and visits to the shop that I became aware of a potential EU directive that is a particular concern to the sector. The directive could bring the business to an end and affect many people who are trying to stop smoking.
	Most smokers know that smoking is bad for their health. Many have wanted to quit, but quit rates are extremely low, with only 3% to 5% of people trying to
	quit managing to do so. Many have turned to e-cigarettes as a substitute. E-cigarettes consist of an electronic inhaler that vaporises a liquid into an aerosol mist, simulating the act of tobacco smoking. E-cigarettes are the same size and shape as cigarettes. They are held in the same way and treated as cigarettes. The difference is that while cigarette smokers smoke for the nicotine but die from the tars and gases released by the burning of tobacco, e-cigarettes deliver nicotine in an aerosol form but, crucially, without the hazards that accompany tobacco smoking. There are, of course, other ways of getting nicotine, such as patches, gum and lozenges, and nicotine is not harmless. However, Action on Smoking and Health states that there is little real-world evidence of harm from e-cigarettes. There are some trace toxicants present, but at a much lower level than in cigarettes.
	A recent article in The Economist sums up the position very well:
	“People smoke because they value the pleasure they get from nicotine in tobacco over the long-term certainty that their health will be damaged. So it seems rational to welcome a device that separates the dangerous part of smoking (the tar, carbon monoxide and smoke…) from the nicotine. And that is what an e-cigarette does.”
	The article finishes by asking rhetorically, “Who could object?” It seems the EU can object, because it is introducing a draft tobacco products directive, which proposes to regulate non-tobacco nicotine-containing products, including e-cigarettes, by classifying the vast majority of these products as medicines. Every product with more than 4 mg of nicotine per millilitre would have to be reclassified. E-cigarettes come in a range of concentrations, from zero—that is, nicotine-free—up to 48 mg per ml, with the average user choosing about 18 mg per ml. Choosing 4 mg per ml would mean a de facto ban on such products. E-cigarettes are not medicines; they are recreational nicotine products.
	However, I do not want Members present or the Government to take my word for it about the benefits of this product. Let us take my constituent, Mr Preston. He and his wife started using e-cigarettes 12 months ago. Previously he smoked 30 a day and his wife smoked 20 a day. They had tried all cessation methods available on the market, none of which worked. Since starting to use e-cigarettes, neither has smoked a conventional cigarette. Mr Preston estimates they have saved up to £400 a month alone. He is 65 years old and tells me that he now wakes up each morning without a heavy chest and an immediate cough. He describes it as
	“no longer waking up with that ‘bottom of the birdcage’ feeling”.
	Another user said:
	“After 32 years of being a smoker I love my e-cigarette and never want to try having a cigarette again! Am on day 50 now, the longest I’ve ever managed”.
	Although I am not proclaiming that e-cigarettes are a positively healthy alternative to conventional smoking, I believe that the removal of the hazardous tar from cigarettes, while still providing the nicotine that smokers look for, means the product should be studied closely and be saved from the forthcoming EU directive.

John Hemming: I refer the House to my declaration of interest as the chairman of the Justice for Families campaign.
	I remain concerned about cases in all the secret courts in the UK. The more secret the court, the more the system acts against the rule of law. Narrow freedoms of speech are at least as important as broad access to publicity—reporting wrongdoing to regulators and asking for advice are important narrow freedoms. Without academic scrutiny, nonsense can be spouted and experts can lie for money with impunity.
	Care proceedings are an area of difficulty. I remain of the view that around 1,000 children a year are wrongly forcibly adopted in the UK. Gradually, I am getting more Government support in this area—sadly, still not from the UK Government. Last week I spoke at the Polish embassy, at a conference about care proceedings. Concerns have now also been raised by Nigeria, the Czech Republic, Bulgaria, Latvia, Zimbabwe, Sri Lanka, Spain and Turkey.
	EWHC 521 (Fam) of Mostyn J.
	When the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown) apologised to the children who were forcibly sent to the Commonwealth, I asked what confidence he had that such an apology would not be issued in the future for what we are doing today. His response was to ask me to send details of individual cases. I have, of course, sent many individual cases to UK Ministers. The standard response is “It’s nothing to do with us, guv”. The fact is that, according to our constitution, the UK Government must publicly accept judicial decisions, although in practice they often criticise them—except in the family division.
	More recently, Australia has apologised for forced adoption. The question was put by Florence Bellone to Professor Eileen Munro about whether in the future we may see an apology in the UK. Her response was:
	“I would not be surprised if a future generation looks back and thinks how horrific the quality of our work was and the damage that we did to families.”
	What we have developed—this is mainly through a mathematical error in the use of the number of children in care for the denominator of the adoption target—is a care system that is obsessed with adoption. It is so obsessed with adoption that it does things that objectively have to seen to be irrational. I will not go into the details of Angela Wileman’s case, as I have referred to it before and I do not have time. I was pleased to hear that the arrest warrant was removed from Susen McCabe, the daughter of Councillor Janet Mockridge, who has been living in France with her two children for over five years. The attempts to remove her son for adoption in England, whilst leaving her daughter, gave the message of a system more concerned about winning than about the best interests of the child.
	In another recent case, I read a note about the effect of the proposal for a child to be adopted out of her family. The report said:
	“Since being told about the adoption, A’s mood has changed, she is clearly concerned and upset by this move, which perhaps is to be expected. However, she has nightmares most nights and is not getting adequate sleep, two weekends ago she vomited 5 times in one night.”
	This case is not unique. There are even international cases where the system has taken children from people visiting the UK and refused to give them back, even though the system clearly does not have jurisdiction. That is damaging to the children, and I am prevented by the sub judice rule from giving more information here.
	The international cases are particularly interesting as the assessments in England can be compared against assessments from professionals in other countries. Professionals in other countries wonder why such strange things are done—things that cause serious psychological damage to children in the UK. Working with Slovak politicians, I have managed to establish an inquiry by the Human Rights Commissioner in the Council of Europe. However, it remains the case that a problem that arises basically in secret courts is constitutionally difficult to fix, because it needs scrutiny to fix it. There is an additional challenge in that the people affected who are UK citizens are generally poorer people and less articulate. Hence, although stories about people who are foreign citizens maltreated in the UK get substantial coverage in the foreign media, there are only a few journalists such as Sue Reid, Christopher Booker and Ted Jeory who are willing to report on these cases. The speech of Denise Robertson, “This Morning’s” agony aunt, at the justice for families conference in Birmingham last December should be broadcast on TV to explain the truth.
	What we actually have is a failure of democracy. In the same way as the cover-up over Hillsborough and the failures at the Mid Staffordshire hospital, we have a system that is going wrong in a large number of cases and maltreating families. In maltreating families, it is maltreating the children and the adults. It is reasonably well known that this is going on. However, the Government deny it. The inquiries that occur in Parliament do not look at the individual cases. Without looking at the individual cases, we cannot see the things that are going wrong. Inquiries such as the family justice review are dominated by the people who run the system, and hence are unlikely to recognise the failures of the system.
	I put forward proposals in my private Member’s Bill, but it was squeezed out by the Government, who have still not explained why in detail. I have had a conversation with the Minister with responsibility for children, but I have no hopes from that. I have very little time left. I would like to give a much fuller speech, as a lot more needs to be said, but I will end by saying Happy Easter.

Justin Tomlinson: I rise to talk about the work I have been doing to try to encourage more people to take up being young entrepreneurs. When I went to university, I was one of 350 students at Oxford Brookes university studying business, but I was the only one who went on to set up my own business. With entrepreneurial flair, risk-taking and perhaps a touch of madness being drummed out of everybody else as they went on to their very successful corporate careers, I went off to set up my own business.
	When I visit local schools and colleges and talk predominantly to business students asking whether they would consider setting up their own business, all their hands go up, probably inspired by TV programmes such as “The Apprentice” and “Dragon’s Den”,
	which generate lots of excitement. I then ask, “How many of you will actually set up your own business?” Suddenly the hands go down and tumbleweed floats past. I ask them why. I would normally expect them to say that the reason is access to finance, but it is not that—it is simply that they do not know how to do it. They are looking for mentors, opportunities and a set career path. If someone is applying to go to university, they fill in the UCAS forms and secure their grades. If they are applying for an apprenticeship or a job in the local economy, they send in their CV, yet there is not such clear guidance on setting up one’s own business.
	To deal with that issue, I, one of the chief fundraisers at Prospect hospice, Amy Falconer, and Andrew Paterson, a lecturer at one of my local colleges, Swindon college, allocated £10 to seven teams and set them the task of trading at Blunsdon market. It is a challenging trading environment; an indoor market that is not at capacity and has limited footfall. I secured mentors from Smiths News, Nouble Furniture, Asda and Barclays to come along to support those teams to formulate ideas and to choose the products and services that they would offer.
	We made sure that the teams understood that their stall would be simply a wooden trestle table that would need dressing up, but that, if they spent too much money dressing it up, they would not make any money. They needed to promote themselves. They competed against existing traders and the other teams. They also looked at promotion to ensure that they did not rely just on the footfall, on what turned out to be an exceptionally cold and wet Wednesday in the market, and got friends and family along. They also were told that they would have to stand on their feet all day, that being in retail is a real challenge, that customers would haggle and that they would have to do mental arithmetic and ensure that they had sufficient change.
	When we got to the market, the seven teams set up. All seven managed to trade extremely well and to make a profit. In fact, the teams managed to raise £838.70 for the hospice. On a very quiet and cold day, that was an incredibly impressive performance. At last Friday’s presentation event, I saw how much they had changed from when they first decided to take up the challenge.
	I want to highlight two of the teams. Art Creations focused on providing henna tattoos. My mother, who is a 72-year-old councillor, and my wife were covered with henna tattoos after visiting that stand. Art Creations managed to make over £100. The Double Trouble team was run by Jessica and Kay, who set up a 1950s cake stall. They were dressed in 1950s clothing. They sold hand-made bags and all the cakes were home-made. There was 1950s music playing. They gave incredible customer service. That team got over £100 as well.
	The key point for those two teams is that they have been invited to return to Blunsdon market in the summer holidays. Those students are all sixth formers considering their career options. They can come back for six weeks to see whether their ideas can work beyond a day and whether they can work for themselves. They will be working with Forward Swindon and In Swindon, two of the organisations charged with re-energising our town centre using Government money to boost the high street. Those teams have both been offered opportunities to take advantage of the provision for pop-up shops;
	they will probably be the first teams to benefit from that. All things being equal and working in the real commercial world, they will have the opportunity to consider that as a career. That career path has been laid out for them.
	With all these students, if they step up, volunteer and succeed, I will do all I can to get the mentors in place to support them. We all have the opportunity to support keen, young and enthusiastic people. They will be the next generation of wealth creators providing employment. We MPs will, I am sure, be queuing up to cut the ribbon and taste the fantastic cakes that they will have at their opening ceremony.

Iain Stewart: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise the issue of accident and emergency provision at Milton Keynes hospital, which serves my constituents and indeed some of your constituents, Mr Speaker. The Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty’s Treasury, my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes North (Mark Lancaster), and I have joined forces with one of our excellent local newspapers, the Milton Keynes Citizen, to campaign for a new A and E centre.
	The issue is simply one of space. Our hospital was built in the early 1980s and the A and E department was designed for approximately 20,000 patients a year. With population growth and other increases in A and E usage, it is now dealing with well over three times that number each year, and very soon it will reach four times that number.
	At this point, I would like to put on the record my deep appreciation of and admiration for the many dedicated staff at the hospital. Although there are certainly long-standing problems in parts of the NHS that have rightly been highlighted and addressed, not least by my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy), it is too easy to overlook the fact that the vast majority of NHS staff do an excellent job and deeply care for their patients. That is certainly what I have found on visiting Milton Keynes hospital.
	However, given an existing population of some 250,000, the accident and emergency centre is already too small. With more than 20,000 housing permissions in place locally over the next 10 years or so and in the light of demographic changes, we will have a larger elderly population and there will be a constant upward demand on A and E services.
	It is also pertinent to mention that the hospital site includes an urgent care centre, opened as part of the Darzi plans a few years ago. Although it was set up with the very best of intentions, far from reducing demand on the A and E department, it has led to an increase because, understandably, people can become confused about where best to go for treatment.
	The emergency care intensive support team recently reviewed the A and E centre and recommended that the NHS trust should seek capital support for what it calls a “common front door” provision. I am happy to report that all the relevant local stakeholders have developed plans for a single-point-of-access system in which those who need the full A and E treatment get it and those with less serious ailments get proper and timely treatment without being pushed from pillar to post.
	The campaign that my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes North and I have launched has received strong local backing. Milton Keynes council recently unanimously backed it, and there is a large and growing number of signatories to the petition that has been launched.
	I fully appreciate that it is not within the gift of the Deputy Leader of the House to write out a cheque for the new centre, but I hope he will relay the points that I have made to his colleagues in the Department of Health and that my contribution today has underlined the importance of this bid. It is now for the hospital to submit its detailed bid in the usual way, and I hope it receives a favourable and timely response.

Simon Hughes: Thirty years ago this month, I made my maiden speech. I want to make two brief introductory points, and then spend a couple of minutes on the subject on the Order Paper.
	First, I want to say thank you to all the people who, for all the time that we have all been here, have looked after us so well in this place: not only the staff employed by the Palace, but the staff who work for us, without whom we could not do our job. If that is not enough and if Members have nothing better to do when the debate finishes, we are celebrating my having been here 30 years, and everyone is very welcome to come to the Attlee Suite for a drink. We are there until 9 o’clock. I want to couple with that a thanks to my head of office, George Turner, who is retiring and going to other things, having seen through the last general election and the first half of this Parliament. I am very grateful to him for his work.
	Secondly, I was prompted to say something on a subject that has nothing to do with the main one: the Revenue and Customs consultation on whether tax offices should be closed or a face-to-face service should continue. I just want to make a very simple point. Many of us can use the internet and e-mail, but many constituents—not just the elderly—sometimes need to talk to somebody. I make a plea that the Government understand that, whether with careers, benefits or tax advice, doing it on the phone or via the internet is not always the answer. We must make sure that we keep face-to-face provision.
	The substantive issue I want to address is the Thames tunnel proposed by Thames Water to deal with London’s sewage. I have been campaigning to clean up the Thames all my political life. Our sewers are overflowing. The wonderful Victorian sewer system cannot cope with the vast size of London and the now increasingly intermittent and heavy rain. As colleagues will know, every time it rains, water pours through the drains and gutters and floods the sewers, which overflow into the Thames. Some 83 million cubic metres of storm water, mixed with raw sewage—a horrible figure—went into the Thames last year. That hardly bears thinking about. The European Community has taken action. It is prosecuting the UK for failing to meet the terms of our waste water directive. I, like all other colleagues with riverside constituencies or in the Thames Water catchment area, have therefore questioned what the solution is.
	The current solution is to pour millions of tonnes of concrete into building a super-sewer through the Thames to intercept the outflows from the sewerage system. That will be very expensive, costing an average of £80 a year for all of Thames Water’s household customers, and it will be hugely disruptive. In my constituency, for example, one site might be worked on for up to seven years. In addition, this solution deals with only one problem. It will efficiently keep sewage out of the Thames, but it will do nothing else.
	Other countries across the world are doing things differently now. Places such as Detroit and Philadelphia and places in Europe started to think about building tunnels but have realised that greener alternatives may be better. Instead of building a big tunnel, Philadelphia now has small interventions: much more porous surfaces on roads, drives and car parks; and smaller sewage collection tanks across the city, rather than in a central place. People in those places believe that what they call a blue-green solution is a better solution and it allows parks to flourish, with the transformation of the city into a wholly greener environment. Such a solution also produces many more jobs at the lower skill levels more quickly than one big tunnel project does. Philadelphia and London may not be the same, but Greater Philadelphia has a huge population, just as London does.
	I have had helpful engagement with colleagues from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Treasury and with the Minister for Government Policy. My plea to the Government is that we look at the blue-green experiences elsewhere. We should look at what has happened in Philadelphia and other cities. It is not too late to have an alternative to a super-sewer down the middle of the Thames. I hope that we can pursue an alternative. I hope that the Deputy Leader of the House will relay back to Ministers that that is very much supported by the community and that the Thames tunnel can be replaced by a greener, more sustainable and more cost-effective solution. Happy Easter to you, Mr Speaker, and do not forget the drink later, if you are thirsty.

Mr Speaker: We will not, and your good wishes are reciprocated, Mr Hughes. Thank you.

Penny Mordaunt: This year we have an early Easter, though not so early, perhaps, that we needed to provision ourselves with chocolate eggs as soon as the Christmas decorations were down at Epiphany. As some supermarkets seem to have substituted Easter eggs, fluffy chicks and chocolate bunnies for tinsel and crackers at cock crow on 7 January, the animals of spring have been a common sight in our supermarkets for some time. But even though the weather continues to be distinctly wintery, there is no reason to give the real egg layers the cold shoulder.
	The cause of hen and cock welfare is one raised with me by many constituents, particularly with regard to beak trimming and battery cages. Although inhumane battery cages were banned at the start of last year, and even though we are assured by Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Ministers that beak trimming will be banned in 2016, hen welfare is not a done deal, and we on the green Benches should take a keen interest, both for the sake of animal welfare
	and because our constituents increasingly expect to eat food that either was or is from an animal that was treated well.
	At one time, consumers would not deign to notice what, if anything, was said about welfare on food packaging. Now, thanks in no small part to the efforts of well-known TV chefs, we want to know from where our food has come. Indeed, the term “higher welfare” has even found its way into the ingredients list of the king of school dinners, Jamie Oliver, and there is undoubtedly a culture in which it is considered poor form to offer for sale food that is lower welfare. In a January 2010 survey, twice as many people as in 2006 said that animal welfare informed their shopping choices—that made 19%, and I am sure that the figure would be higher today.
	The previous Prime Minister’s GOAT—his Government of all the talents—might have been a tur laid to rest by the British people, but that was either the exception that proves the rule on our love of animals or an act of mercy that confirms it. It should be the proud boast of British farmers that no land does more to ensure the welfare of its animals, and the success of the ban on inhumane cages in this country is a case in point. There was concern that increased prices would lead to a drop in demand for eggs, but the reverse was true and the British consumer bought 5% more eggs in 2012 than in 2011.
	Concern for welfare does not stop at the good treatment of hens during their working lives, and the British Hen Welfare Trust should be cock-a-hoop about its successful record since 2005 of re-homing 360,000 laying hens of pensionable age that were otherwise destined for slaughter. The British public should be applauded for their adoption of so many of those creatures, and those acts of mercy will, I am sure, continue.
	Keeping hens is somewhat in vogue at the moment, despite the prospect of heartache. Many a hen keeper will be prepared for the early morning discovery of scattered feathers and an empty coup, but how many are ready for the emotional business of dispatching unwanted chicks? In “The Good Life” idyll one imagines several hens and a single proud cockerel, but one strutting coxcomb will lead to many chicks and what is to become of the male contingent with not a layer among them? I encourage people to consider homes for hens, but to think carefully about a coop for a cockerel.
	Despite the positive step of banning battery cages, many British consumers might be surprised that 17 million hens are still housed in cages, albeit of an enriched variety. These birds provide the eggs that are sold as a constituent part of another product and then, despite the efforts of the British Hen Welfare Trust, sold for the table. The Government should consider the value of labels that would show the origins of eggs when used as an ingredient and when a chicken is an end-of-lay bird as a means of promoting high welfare standards. I also entreat the Government to stick to their plan to hold a thorough investigation into beak trimming in 2015. When we eventually head into spring, let us have no cock-ups on hen welfare.

Tom Brake: Given the time I have left, I shall have to set out some rules at the beginning of my speech. One will be that I will not take any interventions and the other will be that I will have to do my delivery in the style of the hon. Member for Southend West (Mr Amess) if I am to refer to all the contributions made this evening.
	I congratulate those Members who are still in the Chamber on their dedication and commitment to today’s penultimate debate and I hope that they will not be punished by not being able to get home again if the weather is inclement. I also understand that some Members, for obvious reasons, have had to depart early and I shall still try to refer to their speeches. I am particularly grateful for the attendance of the hon. Members for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) and for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) on their birthdays.
	The hon. Member for Colne Valley (Jason McCartney) rightly laid into the doom-mongers with some relish. Times are tough, but he set out some of the success stories in his constituency, particularly on apprenticeships, where there has been dramatic growth. I am pleased to say that in the past couple of weeks I have hired my own first apprentice in my office and he is already making a very positive contribution.
	The hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz) referred to the case of a constituent, Mrs Brenda Pressdee, and I commend the hon. Lady for her assiduous research on that case. I am sure that the relevant Ministers will have heard her request for a meeting on the matter and that they will want to respond positively. She also referred to a national issue, marine conservation zones. She expressed concerns about the cost of a further consultation and I am sure that the Government will want to manage those costs effectively.
	The hon. Member for Salisbury (John Glen) underlined one of the strengths of such debates and this Parliament, which is our ability to raise issues of an international nature. He wanted to generate publicity about the trial of former President Nasheed and I can confirm for his benefit—although I am sure that he is aware of it—that our Government have been consistent in saying that the international community will not find it tenable if the former president is excluded from the elections in the Maldives.
	The hon. Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi) mentioned the Srebrenica genocide, which all Members will remember. It was the biggest war crime in Europe since the second world war. The Government recognise that genocide through events such as Holocaust memorial day and we are working with the Srebrenica genocide memorial and educational project to see other ways in which we can mark that anniversary.
	My hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay (Stephen Gilbert) referred to the controversy surrounding an incinerator or energy recovery facility. I can confirm that I am aware of the controversies surrounding such plants, because there is a proposal for one in Beddington in my constituency. He stressed the importance of ensuring that it provides decent value for money, which is the last issue he wants to pursue, because all the planning processes have been completed.
	The hon. Member for Harrow West (Mr Thomas) talked about his desire to see work proceed on rebuilding Marlborough and Vaughan primary schools. He will be pleased to hear that there is no delay. He asked me to ensure that Ministers chase up the Education Funding Agency, and I am happy to pass that on so that he gets a prompt response. He also referred to problems relating to London Welsh, and I am sure that the Department for Culture, Media and Sport will have listened carefully to what he said. He highlighted some inconsistencies in the penalties issued by the Rugby Football Union, but I do not think that is something I can pursue as Deputy Leader of the House. I am sure that is something he will want to do, and he has put that on the record.
	We then heard a contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel), who stated that Essex is the county of entrepreneurs—I am sure that is also true of many other counties—and made a couple of specific points about Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customers and a constituent, Mr Wright. I am sure that HMRC has public relations people who follow these debates closely and that they will want to pick up on that point and, I hope, respond positively to her concerns. She also referred to some unhappiness about the way in which the Valuation Office Agency works and the need for more flexibility on business rates, particularly how high levels of business rates affect strong and emerging businesses in her constituency.
	The hon. Member for Bradford West (George Galloway) talked about the If campaign, which I am sure many Members on both sides of the House will want to support. That gives me an opportunity to underline the fact that the Government are delivering on the commitment to devoting 0.7% of gross national income on aid, which I think we should all be proud of. It was started by the previous Government and finished by this one. He also expressed concern about the difference in the way children from families with parents who are in work and those from families with parents who are not in work are dealt with in respect of free school meals. I am sure that is something the Department for Education, which has responsibility for free school meals, might want to respond to.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mr Jackson) raised a variety of issues—another Member referred to it as a “kaleidoscope of issues”—and it would be difficult to respond to them all. He referred to the plight of Christians, particularly in countries such as Pakistan; the importance of recognising the need to support Tourette’s sufferers, through the Department for Education, and in schools and in health care; and the importance of fortifying foods with folic acid, and the charity in his constituency, Shine, which works on that issue. I have noted his concerns about equal marriage, but I am pleased that the Government are pursuing it. He talked about the important role the voluntary sector is playing in relation to the Peterborough cathedral appeal. He also mentioned the Sue Ryder hospice and the generosity of his city. I am sure that his city and its people are very generous and that we all want to recognise that.
	We then heard a contribution from the hon. Member for East Lothian (Fiona O'Donnell) on the Cockenzie power station. She said that today might feel like groundhog dog. She will no doubt know that the groundhog is being sued at the moment. In fact, they are seeking the
	death penalty for the groundhog in America because he has failed to predict the beginning of spring accurately. She focused on the need for investment. Clearly, the decision on whether to invest in a new combined cycle gas turbine at Cockenzie is very much a commercial matter for ScottishPower, but I am sure that the Government would welcome that investment and the jobs and energy that would be created if and when the development goes ahead.
	The hon. Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) said that the UK has thrived on immigration but not on foreign criminals, and I certainly agree with that sentiment. He made a concrete suggestion—I am sure that the Ministry of Justice will want to respond to it—about an amendment to the UK Borders Act 2007 that he thinks could address the issue of the deportation of foreign nationals who have served a prison sentence. I am sure that he will secure a response as a result of his speech.
	The hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley), whose birthday I mentioned earlier, talked about sport and fitness for women and girls. She is right to raise that issue, and I commend her for doing so. We need more women and girls in sport, and the well-being that can be derived from that is considerable. She asked for responses to some specific questions, and I will follow those up. The hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) talked about her local bypass and its importance in bringing industrial regeneration, particularly around Radnor Park business park in Congleton, and the possibility of investment in the aerospace industry.
	We then heard from the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty). I am sorry to hear about Dunfermline Athletic football club. I am sure that Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and Her Majesty’s Treasury will want to look on that situation favourably and assist as much as they can. He also talked about Royal Navy personnel in Scotland. I can confirm that there will be a rise in the number of Navy personnel in Fife supporting the Queen Elizabeth-class build, peaking at about 750 personnel. I hope that he welcomes that.
	The hon. Member for Southend West (Mr Amess) raised a very large number of issues, which are all noted. I am sure that the 20 Departments he mentioned will want to respond promptly.
	The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) discussed Ulster Scots culture. I am pleased that he did, because one always learns something in these debates, and that was something new. I think he claimed that no fewer than 12 US Presidents had Ulster Scots heritage, and I am sure that that is entirely accurate.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Ceredigion (Mr Williams) spoke about interest rate swaps, which I am sure that many Members are concerned about. He made a specific request about tailored business loans that I will follow up. The hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) raised the issue of knife crime, which the Government are clearly committed to addressing. He made a specific proposal on a two-strikes policy that the MOJ may want to follow up.
	The speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Sir Bob Russell) was again a bit like groundhog day as regards Essex county council. He raised the expenses scandal, which he likes to mention in this place and I know he will pursue again and again.
	We then heard about Mid Staffs, and I am pleased that we had had a detailed statement on that earlier. I have much sympathy with the concerns expressed about the future of the specialist accident and emergency services. That issue affects my local hospital, St Helier hospital, which is at risk in the same way.
	The hon. Member for Rugby (Mark Pawsey) talked about electronic cigarettes. He will be pleased to know that the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency has conducted research into this that will feed into the Government’s position on the European Commission’s proposals, to which he referred. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (John Hemming) pursued, as he does—I am sure that he will do so relentlessly—the issue of secret courts in relation to family justice.
	The hon. Member for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson) spoke about the apprentice scheme in his constituency. I commend him for that and hope that the young people he is working with will go on to make very successful business people in future. The hon. Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart) referred to concerns about his local A and E department.
	I am afraid that I am running out of time and will not be able to complete my speech, but I commend the contribution of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes) and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Penny Mordaunt), who managed to talk seriously about hen welfare, but managed to make many references to eggs.
	I conclude by wishing a happy Easter to you, Mr Speaker, and the staff of the House, including the Serjeant at Arms and his officers, Hansard, and José and Fedel in the gift shop. It is not eggs that I will be sharing this evening with staff in the Office of the Leader of the House, but liquid refreshment—
	Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 15(5)(a) and Order this day).

Thomas Docherty: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek your guidance
	in your role as custodian of good debate. Is there a way in which the House could congratulate Richard and Jane Quirk, who are leaving the House service after approaching 30 years of public service?

Mr Speaker: The hon. Gentleman does not really need my guidance. He is too self-effacing. He has found his own salvation and a very proper means by which to pay tribute to two long-serving, distinguished and greatly appreciated servants of the House, who are indeed retiring today. That retirement has already been marked by a reception in Speaker’s House and has now been marked by the hon. Gentleman’s pithy and apposite point of order. I think that the whole House will thank them and wish them long and happy retirements.

Business without Debate

E-Tabling of Written Questions

Resolved,
	That this House approves the recommendations relating to written parliamentary questions contained in paragraphs 19 and 20 of the Third Report of the Procedure Committee, on E-tabling of parliamentary questions for written answer, HC 775.—(Nicky Morgan.)

PETITION
	 — 
	Cemetery at Aldridge Road, Walsall

Valerie Vaz: The petition is from Residents Against Cemetery. A petition in similar terms has been signed by 943 people. The petition states:
	The Petition of Residents Against Cemetery,
	Declares that the Petitioners are against the granting of planning for a cemetery at Aldridge Road, Walsall.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to take all possible steps to encourage Walsall Metropolitan Borough Council to consider the objections of local residents.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc. [P001171]

ENERGY INFRASTRUCTURE (UK SUPPLY CHAIN)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Nicky Morgan.)

Peter Aldous: I am pleased to have secured this debate. Its purpose is to highlight the job-creating opportunities associated with renewing the UK’s energy infrastructure, the considerable potential that that offers to generate economic growth, the concern that we may not be making the most of the opportunity, and what can be done to ensure that we do.
	At the outset, I should draw attention to the Register of Members’ Financial Interests because I have an interest in family farms where renewable energy projects are being pursued. However, this evening I shall largely concentrate not on land but on the offshore oil and gas and wind sectors, with some references to nuclear.
	At times during this debate, I might be accused of being parochial and focusing on the opportunities in East Anglia and my Waveney constituency. However, I should emphasise that there are opportunities not only for areas that adjoin the North sea but for areas across the UK. That is because the energy supply chain stretches right across the country and is not confined to Lowestoft and Yarmouth, Humberside or Tyneside. If we get the supply chain working to its full potential, the whole of Britain will benefit. That will have a significant positive impact on GDP, help to rebalance the economy, and provide significant exporting opportunities.
	Not only has Lady Luck looked favourably on me in securing this debate, but the timing is particularly opportune, coming just before the Energy Bill returns to this House on Report after the Easter recess and just before the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills publishes its industrial strategy for oil and gas and offshore wind. At present, there is much focus on the energy sector.
	The country faces a significant challenge: to replace its ageing capacity, provide power to the nation’s homes and businesses and ensure that the nation’s lights do not go out. In rising to that challenge, three criteria need to be addressed: energy must be affordable, secure in supply and low carbon in content. There is a fourth goal, however, that we should strive to achieve. I refer to the opportunity to create economic growth, to rebalance the economy towards the regions and in favour of engineering and manufacturing and to attract inward investment. Nowhere is there a greater opportunity to do that than in East Anglia, which is already a significant player in the energy sector, with 35% to 45% of the nation’s gas supply coming through the Bacton terminal, where the Sizewell C nuclear power station will be built and with Lowestoft, in my constituency, lying closest to the East Anglia Array, potentially the world’s largest wind farm.
	The region will see significant investment in the energy sector over the next 20 years, with an estimated £80 billion to £85 billion in the oil and gas, decommissioning, gas storage, nuclear and offshore wind sectors. The challenge is to ensure that this investment provides the maximum benefit, not only to East Anglians but to people and businesses across the UK

Jim Shannon: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving me permission before the debate to intervene and for bringing this important subject to the Floor of the House. He referred to the benefit to the whole of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. He will be aware that the Belfast shipyard builds wind turbines for land and sea. Will that shipyard be able to get some of this work?

Peter Aldous: Although I am concentrating on the North sea, the supply chain for the offshore work extends right the way around the country, both in the oil and gas sector and the offshore wind sector. I am also extremely conscious of the work that DONG Energy and ScottishPower have done and the investment they have made in Belfast.
	In short, we need to strive to maximise the British content of UK energy infrastructure projects. At present, there are concerns that we are not meeting this challenge. Some two years ago, the Thanet wind farm was completed, with less than 20% of the £900 million of investment going to UK firms. Although companies such as ScottishPower and DONG Energy are aware of the need to maximise the UK content of contracts, we are some distance from achieving the Offshore Wind Developers Forum’s target of 50% UK content for UK offshore wind farms.
	The problem is more serious in the oil and gas sector. In last year’s Budget, the Chancellor announced significant incentives for opening up marginal North sea fields and decommissioning. These initiatives are to be applauded, and North sea investment this year is now at its highest and most extensive for 30 years, but the problem is that contracts worth more than £10 billion are being placed overseas, while in the past two years only 7% of North sea platforms have been made in the UK. In other words, British taxpayers’ money is being used to create jobs in other countries.
	The Nexen Golden Eagle project was awarded to Lamprell of Dubai, the BP Clair Ridge project to Hyundai Heavy Industries of Korea, and Statoil’s Mariner project to Daewoo of Korea and Dragados of Spain. I name just three contracts, but there are more. If some of these contracts had been awarded to British yards, they would have helped secure thousands of jobs and strengthened the UK’s supply chain, which as I have said extends across much of the UK. In the past two years, contracts for a total of 200,000 tonnes of fabrication structures have been awarded outside the UK, representing a loss to the country of 18,600 direct man years of jobs.
	Some people may say, “Tough luck. Why should we pursue protectionist policies propping up uncompetitive UK firms?”. But that is not the case: these businesses are competitive and innovative and have highly skilled and dedicated work forces. If we do not allow them to compete on a level playing field with companies from other countries, there is a danger that the yards will simply disappear. That will not only hit hard those areas of the country with above average levels of unemployment, but it will have a serious knock-on effect on the offshore wind sector, as those businesses are well placed to help build offshore wind farms.
	There is, therefore, a need for the UK to have a local content policy when granting such contracts. The reason given for not having such a policy is that it would contravene EU competition regulations, but if that is
	the case, why is the UK the only oil and gas province in the world that does not have a local content policy? Why should licences granted on the UK continental shelf not contain a clause requiring free and fair provision for British companies in the procurement process?
	The UK Government should apply pressure at national and EU level to ensure that UK companies are not disadvantaged when competing for overseas contracts. Sembmarine SLP, based in Lowestoft in my constituency, advises that in its experience, when it competes for projects in Norwegian, Dutch, German and French waters it has practically no chance of winning owing to blatant protectionism. In the offshore wind sector, Seajacks, based in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth (Brandon Lewis), points out that the French Government have explicitly stated that they intend to award licences for offshore wind sites to bidders favouring the French supply chain. British companies are not looking for favouritism or trade barriers; they are seeking a level playing field. I urge the Minister, together with his colleagues in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and the Treasury, to do all he can to help achieve that.
	The Government could take other long-term measures to strengthen the UK supply chain. Indeed, they have put in place a number of initiatives, for which I thank and commend them. In the time left I shall briefly run through what else needs to be done to ensure that UK-based businesses are in the best possible place to secure contracts.
	First is electricity market reform. At present, the Energy Bill is the most important game in town, and if we get it right it will provide the stable long-term policy environment that is required to attract supply chain investment. I believe that we are moving in the right direction. A £7.6 billion package has been provided for investment in renewable energy, and although the Bill’s provisions are complicated, it should provide the certainty, confidence and credibility that investors are looking for in UK energy policy. Timeliness is vital. It is important to investors that draft strike prices are published in the second quarter of this year and that the Bill receives Royal Assent by the end of the year.
	I commend the Minister on being receptive to amendments to improve the Bill, and I am grateful to him for considering my proposals, which are designed to strengthen the supply chain. The elephant in the room is, of course, the 2030 decarbonisation target. I shall not dwell on that as I know it will be debated in the Chamber in much detail and with much passion in the coming weeks; indeed, it could be the subject of an Adjournment debate. I will say, however, that it is unfortunate that the issue has become a bit of a political football, and when the matter is considered I ask the Government to look behind any political positioning and decide what is best for Britain, and particularly the development of the UK energy supply chain. My views on the matter are determined by what industry and investors tell me, and it is important that we listen to them.
	Secondly, the Government have put in place a number of measures to strengthen the supply chain. In Lowestoft and Great Yarmouth there is an enterprise zone, and the two ports have centre of renewable engineering—CORE—status. Those measures are proving helpful in
	promoting the area, but as the Minister heard from the Norfolk and Suffolk delegation he met last month, more could be done to ensure that we fully realise the potential of the great opportunity in front of us.
	The problem that Yarmouth and Lowestoft face as a CORE is that of six COREs in England, only it and Sheerness do not have assisted area status. I believe that if all six COREs enjoyed the benefit of assisted area status, it would be particularly advantageous, both nationally and internationally, in seeking to promote the UK. It would help Lowestoft and Yarmouth to compete against our fiercest competitors from the low countries on the other side of the North sea.
	I am also mindful that the UK ports fund, which is designed to help the establishment of offshore wind manufacturing, is only available in assisted areas. I am advised that at present this fund is largely unspent. If Lowestoft and Yarmouth were given assisted area status, the two ports could access the fund to carry out work that would stimulate jobs and investment in renewable offshore engineering.
	The advanced manufacturing supply chain initiative is proving beneficial in stimulating investment in manufacturing-related jobs and growth. However, the current minimum threshold of £1 million for investment from the fund appears to be holding businesses back from making applications. It would thus be helpful if the Department of Energy and Climate Change could liaise with the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills to see whether the threshold could be lowered either for individual businesses or for smaller scale projects. This would be helpful to businesses from across the manufacturing sector and to those looking to support energy projects.
	I apologise if it appears that I have a shopping list, as I am mindful that the Minister may tell me that the shelves are bare. I would emphasise, however, that a thriving supply chain can be a key driver in reducing costs in the offshore wind sector, which is vital to establishing the industry on a sustainable, long-term footing.
	Thirdly, investing in skills and people is of paramount importance. The UK needs to improve its skills base to serve the large demand that will come from the North sea in the next few years with regard to the oil and gas and wind sectors. If we do not do that, businesses will source that expertise from other countries.
	I commend the Government for promoting apprenticeships. Indeed, the Minister himself played an important role in that work in a previous life. I also pay special tribute to Lowestoft college which, although not a large further education college, has realised the huge potential in the energy sector and invested a considerable amount of resources in providing facilities and putting on courses with the energy industry’s needs in mind.
	There are a number of different ways and proposals as to how best to invest in skills for the offshore industry. I do not propose to go through these or, indeed, to pick a winner. Suffice to say that it is important that the necessary skills centres should be located near offshore engineering ports. This way we can create the world’s leading pool of offshore engineering skills here in the UK.
	The Offshore Renewable Energy Catapult centre proposed by the Technology Strategy Board will be located in Glasgow, and the north-east and will have an
	important role to play. I was concerned that it would not be a truly national centre of excellence, but those worries have been allayed and I know that organisations in Lowestoft such as OrbisEnergy and the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science look forward to working with the centre in the coming months.
	Fourthly, improving our outdated infrastructure is important if we are to make the most of these opportunities. The Government’s broadband initiative is welcome, though it is vital that the procurement process proceed smoothly and quickly.
	In Lowestoft, conscious of the opportunities that will arise for funding through the single pot, which will be administered by the New Anglia local enterprise partnership, a prospectus of the transport infrastructure we need, both in the town and serving it, was published last week. Working together with the LEP, the councils and businesses, the town will strive to put in place the infrastructure needed to attract businesses to the area.
	In conclusion, renewing the country’s energy infrastructure over the next 20 years provides a great opportunity to create a world-class industry that will provide the growth for which the country is so desperately searching. Much good work has been done, but I am concerned that as matters stand we are in danger of not making the best of the opportunity and we could, in effect, be exporting its benefits to other countries.
	There is a need to provide businesses with both long-term certainty and a level playing field. This is a once in a lifetime opportunity and, in the words of Lord Heseltine, we must
	“leave no stone unturned in pursuit of growth.”

John Hayes: It was T. S. Eliot who said that we know too much and are convinced of too little, but that cannot be said of my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous), who is gaining a reputation as both a powerful and an elegant orator—if I may say so—in the interest of his constituents. Few Members of this House are more determined to advance the employment opportunities, the skills opportunities and the wider economic opportunities of the people they serve than my hon. Friend. I pay tribute to him for bringing this matter to the consideration of the House. He served with some distinction on the Energy Bill Committee, which he mentioned in his speech. I enjoyed working with him, and look forward to working with him further in future on that and other matters.
	My hon. Friend rightly emphasised that the investment in our energy infrastructure is vital. The UK must be able to compete to stay ahead of others in what is increasingly a competitive world order. This is, to the use the Prime Minister’s phrase, a global race. We must ensure not just that we keep up, but that we win that race.
	It is estimated that replacing and upgrading our electricity infrastructure and closing power stations over the next decade will require no less than £110 billion of capital investment. The Government’s electricity market reform programme, which my hon. Friend mentioned in his remarks, is designed to drive investment that will support as many as 250,000 jobs in the energy sector.
	As part of the Energy Bill, we will of course engage in the process of enjoying with the people who will bring about that investment a full and proper debate on jobs and skills in the UK. We are working with communities to maximise benefits and working with the industry to ensure that this is an opportunity to drive growth.

Chris Heaton-Harris: I assume the Minister understands that, with such huge spending, he needs to take the people of Britain on that journey with him. Will he tell the House something about the call for evidence on community engagement on the benefits—supposed benefits—of onshore wind, which his Department finished in the middle of November 2012? We eagerly anticipate the results.

John Hayes: Some say I am the people’s voice. I would not want to claim that myself, but it is certainly true that the people’s interests are always close to my heart. I can tell my hon. Friend that we will respond to that call for evidence. Perhaps I should say more about it. I have asked my officials to look at pre-application consultation, benchmarking good practice, and ensuring that communities have the resources to evaluate and consider wind applications. Many representations have been made on cumulative impact and topography. It is vital—to use not my words, but those of the Secretary of State—that no community feels bullied into having wind turbines in the wrong places, and that the Department of Energy and Climate Change and indeed Government policy should not be used as an excuse for putting them in the wrong places. I cannot be clearer than that, but my hon. Friend will look forward to that publication with excitement and enthusiasm. He knows where I stand on these matters: I stand on the people’s side.
	To return to the main thrust of my argument, the scale of the investment that I described a moment or two ago is big even compared with some of the other major infrastructure investment that the economy is likely to enjoy. It makes up nearly half the total investment in the pipeline—it is up to six times the investment expected in water or communications, and more than 30% greater than expected investment in transport. Perhaps sometimes in energy, we punch below our weight in making the case on infrastructure investment and the effect it can have on the wider economy, and on skills and jobs, as my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney has made clear.
	As I have said, it is critical in that process that we work with businesses, not only to attract greater levels of investment to rebuild our energy infrastructure, stimulate our economy and bolster the jobs market, but to do so in a way that builds a sustainable supply chain.
	In September last year, the Government launched an industrial strategy that will drive forward our approach to creating a new partnership with the business sectors that will give us the greatest potential for development and exports. My Department and my former Department, the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, which my hon. Friend also mentioned, are working closely together and in partnership with UK industry to produce three energy sector strategies as part of the industrial strategy, identifying ways that we can build up the UK supply chain in order to maximise the economic benefits of the investment we have attracted to communities and constituencies across the country.
	These strategies cover oil and gas, nuclear and offshore wind, all of which my hon. Friend mentioned in his speech, and are among the first to be launched as part of the Government’s industrial strategy. Indeed, the nuclear strategy was launched today. It sets out how we can achieve our ambitions in nuclear power, bringing a new generation of nuclear power to deliver light and heat to lives across the nation. It also sets out how we can achieve a massive increase in opportunities for those who work in that industry. It is fair to say that some of those skills have been eroded over time as the last nuclear power station we built was in 1985. There will be jobs in building those stations, in running them and in the regulatory system—the context in which they sit, because of course all we do will be safe and secure.
	The oil and gas strategy will be launched in Aberdeen on Thursday. The offshore wind strategy will be published later this spring. An abundance of virtues is emanating from the partnership between my Department and BIS. The strategies set out where we are now, where we want to get to, and how we will get there. This work will bring forward important analysis of supply chains, focusing on barriers, skills and technology.
	There is good news. For example, Hitachi, which is a partner organisation that wants to develop a new generation of nuclear power in this country, has suggested that 60% of the jobs created will be local. The Hinkley Point development, which has been debated in the House several times and is of critical importance, estimates that potentially 57% of the jobs will be from the UK. These are real and tangible benefits to our nation as the result of a policy that is not protectionist—although Joseph Chamberlain is one of my heroes—but planned, on the basis that if we get the economic effect for which my hon. Friend calls, we will build unparalleled resilience, flexibility and responsiveness. It is right that all should benefit from the plans that I have outlined today.
	I make no apologies for being a patriot—no one in this House should—so of course the measure has to be quality. I know that, by and large, British is best. As we move forward with our nuclear supply chain action plan, which was delivered in December 2012, and work on the community benefits for sites that host new nuclear power stations and new technology in other areas—mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris)—we must put the people’s interests first. That is also true in the oil and gas sector.
	As I said, the oil and gas sector strategy will be published on Thursday in Aberdeen. It will focus on how we can develop further opportunities in the North sea to the benefit of communities and of the supply chain. My hon. Friend the Member for Waveney will know that our gas generation strategy, published last December and of course on everyone’s bedside table, is designed to provide certainty for investors about the Government’s view of gas generation to ensure that sufficient investment comes forward within the context of the Government’s wider energy policies. Gas currently forms an integral part of the UK’s energy generation mix because it is reliable and flexible. It provides around 40% of our electricity. Shale gas is another exciting opportunity and our new office of unconventional gas and oil will be the pivot of our thinking and developments in that area.
	We have enjoyed an exciting Easter Adjournment debate, and, at the end of that, another exciting debate thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney. It remains for me to wish you personally, Mr Speaker, a joyous Easter, and to do so in the knowledge that this Minister and this Government are determined to do right by the British supply chain.
	Question put and agreed to.
	House adjourned.